B  L 
805 
A9 
MAIN 


UC-NRLF 


$B    im    bb3 


Zbc  TUnivcxsit^  ot  dbica^o 

FOUNDED  BY  JOHN  D.  ROCKEFBLLER 


HE  DEIFICATION  OF  ABSTRACT  IDEAS 

IN  ROMAN  LITERATURE  AND 

INSCRIPTIONS 


A  DISSERTATION 

SUBMITTED   TO  THE  FACULTY  OF  THE  GRADUATE  SCHOOL  OF  ARTS  AND 

LITERATURE  IN  CANDIDACY  FOR  THE  DEGREE  OF 

DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 

(department  of  latin) 


BY 
HAROLD  L.  AXTELL 


^     OF  TVc 

UNIVERSITY 

OF 


CHICAGO 

THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CHICAGO  PRESS 

1907 


¥ 


L>; 


>-^. 


^^j 


mm^i^-nj^/m^ 


TLbc  XXnivctsii^  of  (TbtcaQO 

FOUNDED  BY  JOHN  D.  ROCKEFELLER 


THE  DEIFICATION  OF  ABSTRACT  IDEAS 

IN  ROMAN  LITERATURE  AND 

INSCRIPTIONS 


A  DISSERTATION 

SUBMITTED   TO  THE  FACULTY  OF  THE  GRADUATE  SCHOOL  OF  ARTS  AND 

LITERATURE  IN  CANDIDACY  FOR  THE  DEGREE  OF 

DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 

(department  of  latin) 


BY 
HAROLD  L.  AXTELL 


OF  TV'i 

UNIVERSITY 

OF 


CHICAGO 

THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CHICAGO  PRESS 

1907 


Ji 


COPTEIGHT  1907  By 

The  Univeesitt  of  Chicago 


Published  September  1907 


Composed  and  Printed  By 

The  University  of  Chiotgo  Press 

Chicago.  Illinois.  U.  S.  A. 


TO  MY  MOTHER 

IN  GRATEFUL  APPRECIATION 

OF  HER 

SYMPATHY  AND  ENCOURAGEMENT 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/deificationofabsOOaxterich 


PREFACE 

In  the  following  treatise  the  writer  has  had  two  objects,  in  pursu- 
ance of  which  the  treatise  falls  into  two  parts.  In  Part  I  an  attempt 
is  made  to  classify  the  certain  and  probable  deified  abstractions 
besides  those  in  doubt,  and  to  set  forth  the  most  important  facts 
about  thern.  In  this  I  have  not  aimed  at  an  exhaustive  or  encyclo- 
paedic treatment,  or  to  serve  the  purpose  already  accomplished  by 
the  various  dictionaries  and  manuals  upon  Roman  religion.  The 
main  facts  of  each  cult  are  briefly  set  forth  and,  for  these,  ancient 
and  modern  sources  have  been  freely  used;  but  the  chief  aim  has 
been  to  discuss  at  length  obscure  and  disputed  points.  For  this 
reason  more  space  has  often  been  given  to  uncertain,  though  less 
prominent,  examples  than  to  well-known  cults. 

In  Part  II,  I  have  intended  to  give  a  general  survey  of  the 
origin  and  position  of  these  deities  as  a  class  among  the  Romans. 
The  evidence  of  coins  and  plastic  art  has  not  been  used,  except 
incidentally  in  a  few  cases,  since  a  thoroughgoing  investigation  in 
these  branches  would  have  been  too  extensive  for  the  present  work. 

It  is  to  a  study  of  Professor  G.  Wissowa's  Religion  und  Kultus 
der  Romer  that  the  inception  of  this  opusculum  is  due,  as  also  its 
guidance  in  many  respects.  I  am  also  greatly  indebted  to  Professor 
Gk)rdon  J.  Laing,  of  the  University  of  Chicago,  under  whose  con- 
stant supervision  my  work  has  been  carried  on.  Professors  F.  F. 
Abbott,  W.  G.  Hale,  Paul  Shorey,  and  Edward  Capps,  and  Mr.  B. 
L.  Ullman  have  also  given  me  valuable  help  and  advice. 

Harold  L.  Axtell 

University  of  Idaho 
June,  1907 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Corpus  Inscriptionum  Latinarum   (CIL.). 

Ephemeris  epigraphica   (Eph.  epig.). 

L'annee  Spigraphique  (L'ann.  epig.). 

Notizie  degli  Scavi  (Notisie). 

Orelli-Henzen,  Inscriptiones  latinae  (Orelli). 

Dessau,  Inscriptiones  latinae  selectae  (Dessau). 

Boissieu,  Inscriptions  antiques  de  Lyon. 

Ruggiero,  Dizionario  epigrafico. 

Babelon,  Monnaies  cotisulaires  (Babelon). 

Cohen,  Medailles  imperiales. 

Eckhel,  Doctrina  numorutn  veterum  (DNU). 

Roscher,  Lexikon  der  griechischen  und  romischen  Mythologie  (Roscher). 

Pauly-Wissowa,  Real-Encyclop'ddie  der  classischen  Altertums-Wissenschaft. 

Daremberg-  et  Saglio,  Dictionnaire  des  antiquites. 

Marquardt,  Romische  Staatsverwaltung   (Rom.  S.V.). 

Preller,  Romische  Mythologie  (Preller). 

Wissowa,  Religion  und  Kultus  der  Romer  (R.-K.). 

Wissowa,  Gesammelte  Abhandlungen  (Gesam.  Abhandl.). 

Domaszewski,  Die  Religion  des  romischen  Heeres.  • 

Carter,  De  deorum  romanorum  cognominibus. 

Engelhard,  De  personiHcationibus,  quae  in  poesi  atque  arte  romanorum   inveni- 

untur. 
Aust,  De  aedibus  sacris  populi  romani  conditis. 
Henzen,  Acta  fratrum  Arvalium. 
Gilbert,  Geschichte  und  Topographie  der  Stadt  Rom  im  Altertum. 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 


Part  I.  The  Deified  Abstracts  as  Individual  Cults    ...  7 

I.    State-Cults 9 

A.  Of  the  Republican  Period 9 

B.  Of  the  Empire 31 

II.   Abstracts  Popularly  But  Not  Officially  Worshiped    ...  43 

III.  Occasional  and  Individual  Deifications 48 

IV.  Doubtful  Examples 50 

Part  II.  The  Deified  Abstracts  as  a  Class 59 

I.   Their  Origin 59 

II.   The  Deified  Abstracts  in  Literature 67 

A.  Literature  of  the  Republic 69 

B.  Literature  of  the  Early  Empire       .           76 

C.  Literature  of  the  First  and  Second  Centuries  a.  d.           .  79 

D.  Literature  of  the  Late  Empire 83 

•    •       E.  The  Christian  Fathers 85 

III.   The  Abstracts  in  the  Inscriptions 86 

Indices 99 

I.    Index  of  Deities 99 

II.   Index  of  Authors 100 


OF 


PART  I.     THE  DEIFIED  ABSTRACTS   AS   INDIVIDUAL 

CULTS 

The  cases  of  deification  to  be  considered  in  this  paper  may  be 
grouped  merely  for  convenience  according  to  Cicero's  classification, 
De  nat.  deor.  ii.  19.  28  (cf.  Wissowa  Religion  und  Kultus  der 
R'dmer  [R.-K.],  p.  271),  as  (i)  virtues,  virtutes,  and  (2)  desirable 
conditions,  res  expetendae.  The  latter  class  will  be  interpreted 
rather  broadly  to  include  such  material  concepts  as  connote  a 
quality  or  condition ;  e.  g.,  Annona,  "abundance,"  and  Pecunia, 
"wealth."  On  the  other  hand,  an  abstract  idea  specialized  in  a 
purely  material  way  as  Tranquillitas,  "sea-calm,"  is  practically  as 
concrete  as  any  natural  object  deified,  e.  g.,  Nympha,  and  is  there- 
fore excluded.  In  some  cases  the  distinction  is  not  easy  to  make, 
but  in  these  cases  considerations  of  general  usage  and  relationship 
have  been  the  determining  factor  in  the  selection. 

It  is  more  difficult  to  define  deification ;  for,  apart  from  all 
metaphysical  speculation  as  to  the  essence  of  deity,  into  which  it 
is  not  my  purpose  to  enter,  it  is  impossible  to  set  a  sharp  limit 
between  personification  and  deification,  so  closely  related  are  the 
two  provinces.  To  personify  is  to  give  personality  to  an  object  or 
power;  to  deify  is  to  ascribe  superhuman  attributes.  Given  the 
principle  that  certain  qualities  are  actually  deities,  every  quality  is 
a  potential  god,  and  the  circle  is  limited  only  by  the  number  of 
abstractions  which  the  mind  is  capable  of  making.  And  the  circle 
is  not  the  same  for  every  mind.  Qualities  so  rare  and  so  important 
to  one  man  as  to  seem  sacred  spirits  at  work  in  the  universe  are 
to  another  but  mere  notions.  Many,  therefore,  of  the  qualities 
which  we  find  embodied  in  personality  in  imaginative  literature 
may  have  seemed  to  their  authors  true  deities  and  not  merely 
rhetorical  figures ;  but,  as  there  is  no  way  of  definitely  determining 
this  fact,  they  must  be  disregarded.  We  must  rely,  therefore,  on 
external  evidences  of  worship,  which  in  order  of  importance  may 
be  classified  somewhat  as  follows :  first,  temples,  priests,  and  festi- 
vals ;  second,  shrines,  and  altars ;  third,  the  use  of  the  word  sacrum 
in  formulae  and  of  the  word  deus  or  dea;  fourth,  statues,  reliefs, 
and  figures  on  coins. 

Temples,  priests,  and  public  festivals  in  Rome  are  evidence  of 


8  DEIFICATION  OF  ABSTRACT  IDEAS  IN  ROMAN  LITERATURE 

State-cults.  Altars^  and  shrines  are  in  themselves  signs  only  of 
private  or  perhaps  popular  worship ;  for  many  religious  cults  were 
allowed  perfect  liberty  privately,  in  so  far  as  they  did  not  become 
centers  of  political  activity  or  degrade  the  morals  (cf.  Wissowa 
R.-K.,  p.  408). 

The  term  sacer  implies  worship  (Marc.  iii.  3.  2),  but  in  poetry, 
like  deus  and  dea,  it  became  weakened  by  rhetorical  use  to  mean 
anything  revered  and  cherished  as  rare;  cf.  the  English  "divine." 
Even  in  inscriptions  it  came  to  be  used  with  pure  appellatives,  as  in 
memoriae  cuiusdam  sacrum,  and  once  it  is  found  in  an  honorary 
inscription  to  a  person ;  viz.,  III.  398,  M.  Aimilio  M.  f .  Pal.  Proculo 
praef.  fabr.  M.  Lepidi  Aug.  ....  procos.  sacrum  Civitas  Perga- 
men.  h(onoris)  causa.  This  too  is  upon  an  altar.^  Cf.  VI.  27455, 
Sacrum  M.  Titieno  M.  f.  Martiali ;  also  VI.  24815. 

Statues,  reliefs,  and  figures  with  legends  upon  coins  do  not  of 
themselves  afford  sufficient  proof  of  a  cult.  They  are  only  the 
artistic  expression  of  mental  concepts,  embodied  personifications 
revered,  but  not  necessarily  deified.  Stripped  of  the  ever-present 
cornucopia,  helmet,  scepter,  veil,  or  wreath,  they  are  the  same 
female  figure  (cf.  Wissowa  R.-K,,  p.  9),  and  even  with  these 
symbols  it  is  not  seldom  impossible  to  distinguish  between  them 
(cf.  R.  Engelhard  De  personiUcationihus,  pp.  56-64).  The  extent 
to  which  mere  qualities  are  symbolic  on  coins  is  seen  in  the  dedica- 
tion Alacritati  on  a  coin  of  Gallien  (Cohen  II,  no.  54).  For  others 
see  Wissowa  R.-K.,  p.  280.  It  is  questionable  whether  a  thorough 
study  of  the  figures  and  their  symbols,  as  this  scholar  suggests, 
would  determine  what  were  the  true  deities,  since  the  caprice  of  an 
artist  is  as  great  as  the  rhetorical  personification  of  a  poet.  Both 
care  little  for  actual  facts  of  cult.     This  kind  of  evidence  would 

*It  has  been  held  that  in  some  cases  altars  imply  no  true  worship,  but  are 
simply  commemorative;  e.g.,  Tac.  Ann.  i.  14,  aram  adoptionis ;  iii.  i8,  ultioni ; 
iv.  74,  clementiae  (see  Furneaux  and  Nipperdei  ad  loc.)  ;  Cic.  Phil.  14.  34 ;  Suet. 
Aug.  I  ;  CIL.  IX.  3079»  3837  ;  VI.  3474,  361 1  ;  Thes.  Hng.  Lat.,  p.  388  ;  Ruggiero 
Diz.  epig.,  p.  594,  The  passage  from  Cicero  implies  figurative  worship,  that 
from  Suetonius  is  doubtful  in  text  and  meaning.  The  altars  with  inscriptions 
upon  them  are  in  honor  of  some  person,  but  they  may  well  have  been  used  at 
the  same  time  for  the  worship  of  some  deity  also.  For  Tacitus  see  below,  p.  80. 
These  few  exceptions,  if  valid,  are  insufficient  to  throw  any  material  doubt  upon 
the  use  of  an  altar  for  worship  in  any  other  case. 

'The  representations,  however,  of  a  palm  and  an  oak  tree  with  serpents 
near  by  may  possibly  indicate  real  worship  of  the  genius. 


DEIFIED  ABSTRACTS  AS  INDIVIDUAL  CULTS  9 

transcend  the  limits  of  the  present  paper,  and,  like  rhetorical  per- 
sonification, it  is  used  here  only  in  connection  with  more  certain 
proofs  of  worship. 

In  accordance  with  these  various  kinds  of  evidence,  the  deified 
abstractions  fall  naturally  into  three  classes : 
I.  State-cults. 
II.  Popular  but  unofficial  cults. 
III.  Occasional  and  individual  deifications. 

I.     STATE-CULTS 
A.   OF   THE    REPUBLICAN    PERIOD 

In  chronological  order,  as  far  as  they  can  be  determined,  these 
are: 

FoRTUNA,  or,  by  her  earlier  and  fuller  designation,  Fors  For- 
TUNA. — ^Varro  L.L.  v.  64  names  Fors  as  separate  from  Fortuna, 
and  other  writers  use  this  name,  but  it  is  not  found  in  the  actual 
cult  According  to  tradition,  Servius  Tullius  (Ancus  Marcius,  Plut. 
De  fort.  Rom.  5)  founded  two  temples^-one  at  the  first  mile-stone 
on  the  Via  Portuensis,  the  other  in  the  Forum  Boarium.  The  loca- 
tion of  these  temples  outside  the  Pomerium  and  the  traditional 
designation  of  Servius  Tullius  as  their  founder  indicate  that  For- 
tuna was  not  a  native  Roman  deity,  but  that  she  was  adopted  very 
early,  probably  from  neighboring  Italic  communities,  e.  g.,  the 
Sabines  (Praeneste,  Varro  loc.  cit.),  the  Latins  (Antium),  the 
Etruscans  (Ferentinum),  or  the  Umbrians  (Fanum  Fortunae). 
See  Peter  in  Roscher  I.  1548. 

Most  probably  she  was  a  beneficent  power  of  good  luck  in  the 
earliest  stage.  This  conception  of  her  function  is  supported  by 
her  worship  among  those  of  humble  state  in  the  temple  of  Servius 
Tullius,  by  the  mythical  stories  of  her  association  with  that  fortu- 
nate youth,  by  her  various  services  to  women,  and  by  the  fact  that  she 
was  sung  and  honored  by  farmers  after  successful  harvest  (Ovid 
Fasti  vi.  771,  569 ;  iv.  375  ;  Columella  x.  311).  The  evidence  is  much 
too  incomplete  to  determine  which  of  these  various  phases  was  the 
earlier.  Marquardt  {Rom.  S.V.  Ill,  p.  578)  supported  by  Wissowa 
{R.-K.,  p.  206),  seems  to  hold  that  originally  she  was  a  goddess  of 
agriculture  and  horticulture.  They  cite  Columella  x.  311.  But  that 
passage  is  far  too  incidental,  as  Peter  (Roscher  I.  1502  f.)  has  seen ; 
and  even  if  it  is  granted  that  the  farmers  worshiped  her  (and  it 


lO        DEIFICATION  OF  ABSTRACT  IDEAS  JN  ROMAN  LITERATURE 

was  natural  that  they  should),  this  by  no  means  implies  that  they 
alone  worshiped  her.  For  how  can  we  derive  her  functions  as  a 
goddess  of  women  from  an  agricultural  starting-point?  The  late 
farm-calendars  {CIL.  P,  p.  280)  adduced  by  Wissowa  afford  no 
help,  for  they  name  sacrifices  to  deities  not  restricted  in  origin  to 
agricultural  relations ;  e.  g.,  Mercury,  Hercules,  Spes,  Salus.  They 
simply  pick  out  important  sacrifices  for  the  various  months.  The 
situation  of  the  temples  in  the  country  would  be  more  significant 
evidence  did  we  not  know  of  Fortuna  Muliebris  ad  IV  miliarium  in 
via  Latina.  Finally,  the  absence  of  Fortuna,  in  the  list  of  ancient 
agricultural  gods  in  Varro  De  re  rust.  i.  i.  6,  is  strange  if  she  had 
been  originally  revered  as  a  goddess  of  the  farm  alone. 

From  a  spirit  of  good  fortune  she  became,  in  a  later  conception, 
one  of  chance  (incerti  casus,  Cic.  De  nat^eor.  ii.  11.  28),  and  this 
shift  in  conception,  due  possibly  to  the  Greek  idea  of  Fortuna  caeca 
et  exoculata  (Apul.  vii.  2),  led  to  designations  bona  and  mala 
(Plant.  Aul.  100;  Rud.  501),  so  that  under  the  latter  epithet  an 
altar  was  erected  on  the  Esquiliae  (Cic.  op.  cit.  iii.  25.  63).  This 
Greek  influence  is  seen  also  in  the  cult  of  Fortuna  lovis  puer 
Primigenia,  the  first-born  daughter  of  Jupiter,  with  its  system  of 
lots  at  Praeneste,  which  cult  was  not  introduced  into  Rome  until 
194  B.  c,  when  after  the  siege  of  Crotona  the  consul  built  a  temple 
to  Fortuna  publica  populi  Romani  Quiritium,  on  the  Quirinal, 
followed  by  others  in  the  same  locality  and  on  the  Capitoline. 

Numerous  other  cults  of  various  names  sprang  up,  representing 
functions  and  relations  which  were  in  many  cases  very  minute,  so 
that  in  these  specializations  she  became  of  no  more  distinct  individ- 
uality than  a  genius;  cf.  Fortuna  huius  loci  (CIL.  III.  10399)  »* 
Fortunab  (us)  Verulanae  (VI.  182) ;  per  Fortunas  (vestras)  ves- 
trosque  Genios,  (Apul.  viii.  20),  and  Peter  in  Roscher  I.  1521  ff.  As 
a  special  protector  of  private  homes  she  was  frequently  included 
among  the  Penates  (Helbig  Wandgemdlde,  pp.  73  ff.)- 

The  emperors,  beginning  with  Augustus,  gave  great  prominence 
to  Fortuna  Redux,  honoring  her  with  an  altar  and  annual  games 
on  the  anniversary  of  the  return  of  Augustus  from  the  East  in 
19  B.  c.  She  was  brought  into  relation  with  the  cult  of  the  emperors 
by  the  cognomen  Augusta.  Recognizing  Fortuna  as  the  supreme 
deity  in  crises,  the  state  officials  placed  images  of  the  Fortunae 
Antiates  on  the  throne  of  Jupiter  during  Poppaea's  confinement  in 


DEIFIED  ABSTRACTS  AS  INDIVIDUAL  CULTS  II 

63  A.  D.  (Tac.  Ann,  xv.  23).  Antoninus  Pius  had  the  golden 
image  of  Fortuna  in  his  sleeping-room,  and  transferred  it  to  that 
of  Marcus  Aurelius  as  the  sign  of  his  succession  (Julius  Capitoli- 
nus  iii.  12.  5,  6).  It  is  not  strange  that  many  considered  her 
dearum  praecipua  (Fronto,  p.  8,  Naber). 

The  Roman  armies  of  the  Empire  gave  an  important  place  to 
the  goddess  of  chance.  Domaszewski  (Religion  des  romischen 
Heeres,  p.  40)  suggests  that  Vespasian  was  the  first  to  introduce 
the  cult,  as  previously  it  was  contrary  to  Roman  spirit  to  emphasize 
the  importance  of  chance  in  the  army,  which  intended  to  master  its 
power.  But  that  the  connection  between  Mars  and  Fortuna  was 
seen  at  least  in  republican  times  is  proved  by  the  companion  dedica- 
tions to  Mars  and  Fortuna  de  praidad  (XIV.  2577,  2578).  The 
juxtaposition  of  Fortuna  with  Hercules  in  the  inscriptions  of  the 
equites  singulares  (VI.  31140,  31 145,  31148-49;  cf.  also  IX.  4674) 
may  point  to  some  inner  relationship  between  these  cults,  possibly 
derived  in  some  way  from  the  myth  that  Hercules  gave  the  horn 
of  Amalthea  to  her  (Porph.  ad  Hor.  Carm.  i.  17.  14;  cf.  Wissowa 
Gesam.  Ahhandl,  p.  303,  who  also  shows  that  no  German  deity 
was  concealed  in  the  name  Fortuna  in  these  inscriptions). 

Concordia. — The  goddess  of  harmony  had  her  first  temple  on 
the  east  slope  of  the  Capitoline  above  the  Forum,  built  in  367  b.  c. 
by  the  dictator  Camillus  to  commemorate  the  reconciliation  of 
plebeians  and  patricians  after  the  passage  of  the  Licinian  laws.  Of 
the  origin  of  this  cult  we  know  nothing  besides  these  facts.  But 
Preller  (11^,  p.  260)  and  Peter  (in  Roscher  I.  915)  consider  Con- 
cordia originally  a  secondary  designation  ("Nebenform")  for 
Venus,  derived  perhaps  from  Venus  Cloacina,  who,  they  say,  had 
a  shrine  in  the  vicinity  of  the  temple  of  Concordia.  This  hypothesis, 
however,  is  not  justified  by  the  extant  evidence,  which  is  (i)  a 
coin  of  Mussidius  Longus,  bearing  the  figure  of  a  building  inscribed 
cloacin(a)  on  the  reverse  side,  the  obverse  showing  the  face  of 
Concordia;  (2)  a  resemblance  of  Concordia  on  two  coins  of  the 
gens  Vinicia  to  Venus  Victrix.  But  Venus  Cloacina  is  only  a  guess 
by  Pliny  (N,H.  xv.  119)  to  explain  a  deity  that  had  long  since 
lost  its  original  signification  to  everybody,  in  the  same  way  as 
Venus  Murcia  and  Venus  Libitina  had  lost  theirs  (cf.  Pauly- 
Wissowa  EncycL  IV.  60  f.).  As  for  the  resemblance  to  Venus 
Victrix   (Peter),  it  is  not  sufficiently  marked  to  be  convincing. 


12        DEIFICATION  OF   ABSTRACT  IDEAS   IN  ROMAN  LITERATURE 

Venus  Victrix  has  a  diadem  and  other  forms  that  Concordia  lacks. 
Venus  Erycina  (Babelon  Monnaies  consulaires  I,  p.  379)  seems 
more  Hke  her,  and  Fides  (Babelon  II,  pp.  127  and  136)  has  a  similar 
expression.  The  ornaments  of  laurel,  earring,  and  necklace  are  not 
decisive,  for  they  are  found  on  other  deities  (cf.  the  necklace  of 
Anna  Perenna).  This  evidence,  therefore,  is  far  too  slight  to 
give  any  degree  of  probability  to  Preller's  identification.  There 
would  be  as  good  reason  to  connect  her  with  Juno  from  the  African 
inscription  (VIII.  4197,  lunoni  Concordiae  Aug.),  in  which  the 
combination  evidently  signifies  the  marriage  state,  and  Concordia  is 
doubtless  appositive.  But  from  this  juxtaposition  we  cannot  infer 
any  orginal  identity  of  the  two.  So  far  as  we  know,  Concordia 
was  always  an  independent  conception. 

Besides  the  temple  near  the  Forum,  there  was  another  on  the 
arx  in  216  b.  c,  erected  to  commemorate  the  suppression  of  a 
military  revolt  in  Gaul  (Liv.  xxii.  33.  7).  Again  after  the  civil  war 
in  44  B.  c.  the  Senate  established  the  cult  of  Concordia  Nova, 
and  in  10  b.  c.  Augustus  founded  a  sanctuary  for  her  in  conjunction 
with  Salus  and  Pax.  Later  the  cult  typified,  besides  political  con- 
cord, the  cordial  relations  in  the  emperor's  family ;  e.  g.,  between 
Tiberius  and  Livia  {CIL.  X.  810;  Ovid  Fasti  vi.  637),  Nero  and 
Agrippina  (VI.  2041,  1.  31,  Concordiae  honoris  Agrippinae),  Vitel- 
lius  and  Galeria  (VI.  2051,  ii,  1.  13).  Vitellius  was  fawningly 
called  Concordia  by  the  senators  and  took  the  name  as  a  cognomen 
(Suet.  Vitel.  15).  Statins  {Silv.  i.  2.  239,  240)  speaks  of  our 
goddess  in  the  aspect  of  marriage.  Still  later  the  reference  is  to  the 
relations  between  the  emperors  and  their  heirs:  Concordia  Augus- 
torum  {CIL.  VIII.  17829),  Augusta  ^  (ibid.;  cf.  VIII.  8301,  and 
Hiibner  Annali  1864,  p.  263).  The  importance  of  this  state-cult  is 
strikingly  attested  by  the  fact  that  in  Patavium  a  special  organization 
of  Concordiales  existed,  inferior  in  rank,  but  connected  with  the 
Augustales  (CIL.  V.  p.  268,  nos.  2307,  2843,  2865,  2869,  2872). 

But,   outside  the   sphere  of  a   state-cult,   Concordia   was   also 

'The  phrases  Concordia  Augusti  (CIL.  VIII.  18891.  ii.  465)  and  Concordia 
ipsius  (VI,  p.  479)  are  difficult  to  understand ;  for  the  harmony  of  one  person 
is  impossible.  Mommsen  (ad  VIII.  18891)  assumes  two  statues  each  set  up  to  the 
Concordia,  or  harmonious  spirit,  of  one  of  the  two  rules.  Hiibner  (ad  II.  465) 
connects  this  phrase  with  the  reading  Concordia  p(opuli)  R(omani)  on  coins, 
and  conjectures  that  it  refers  to  the  cordial  relations  of  Augustus  with  the 
Roman  people. 


DEIFIED  ABSTRACTS  AS  INDIVIDUAL  CULTS  1 3 

frequently  honored  throughout  the  Empire.  I  will  mention  a  few 
interesting  cases.  In  Africa  a  statue  of  Concordia  Perpetua  was 
set  up  by  a  city  subject  to  a  neighboring  colony,  but  having  its  own 
commonwealth  (VIII.  15447;  cf.  also  VIII.  6942).  In  Sicily  the 
Lilybaean  state  erected  a  temple  of  Concordia  Agrigentinorum  for 
the  neighboring  state  of  Agrigentum,  possibly  recalling  their  inter- 
ference and  restoration  of  peace  in  the  affairs  of  their  neighbors  or 
the  harmonious  attitude  of  the  latter  toward  themselves  (X.  7192). 
In  Thamugudis,  Africa,  the  inhabitants,  having  constructed  a  forum 
with  their  own  hands  and  means,  at  the  order  of  the  authorities 
(ordo)  erected  pedestals  to  Concordia  populi  et  ordinis  (VIII. 
2342).  The  armies  apparently  did  not  commonly  worship  this 
deity,  but  we  find  a  temple  (?)  erected  to  Concordia  var(iarum) 
stationum  in  connection  with  the  Genius  b(ene)fidariorum  (XIII. 
6127;  Eph.  Epig.  IV,  pp.  383,  400;  Domaszewski  op.  cit.,  p.  107). 

Salus. — In  Salus  we  have  another  ancient  Italic  divinity  attested 
by  archaic  inscriptions  from  Praeneste,  Pisaurum,  and  Horta;  viz., 
Salutes  pocolom  (I.  49),  Salute  (I.  179).  In  some  unknown  way 
the  Sabines  assumed  a  relation  between  her  and  Sancus,  as  the 
name  Salus  Semonia  indicates  (see  references  in  Wissowa  R,-K., 
p.  122).  She  was  given  a  temple  on  the  Quirinal  in  302  B.C. 
( Varro  L.  L.  v.  52 ;  Liv.  x.  1.9:  dedication  day  August  5,  Fasti 
Amiterni;  Cic.  Pro  Sestio  131)  as  the  goddess  of  welfare,  in  which 
sense  Plautus  refers  exclusively  to  her,  while  Terence  sometimes 
couples  her  with  Aesculapius  (e.  g.,  Hecyra  338).  This  is  due  to 
the  fact  that  just  after  Plautus'  time,  in  180  b.  c,  she  was  identified 
with  Hygieia,  the  wife  of  Aesculapius  (Liv.  xl.  37.  1-3).  But  the 
more  general  conception  of  the  earlier  period  endured  along  with 
this  new  narrow  specialization  (e.  g.,  Ter.  Adelp.  761 ;  cf.  Cic.  In 
Verr.  iii.  131 ;  Pro.  Font.  21 ;  Ad  Att.  xii.  45.  3)  down  into  the 
empire  (V.  428,  Saluti  Augustae  pro  incolumitate  Piquenti;  XIII. 
1589,  Saluti  generis  humani). 

This  deified  abstract  is  one  of  the  most  important  in  the  list,  at 
least  in  the  Empire.  The  frequent  prayers  to  her  alone  and  con- 
jointly with  the  Capitoline  trinity  which  are  preserved  in  the 
records  of  the  Arval  Brothers  show  this.  It  is  not  certain,  however, 
\  that  in  these  she  is  always  the  donor  of  welfare,  as  Wissowa  holds. 
In  the  prayer  in  behalf  of  the  good  health  of  Nero,  the  probable 
heir   to  the   throne    (50-54  a.  d.,   VI,   no.   2034),   Jupiter,   Juno, 


14        DEIFICATION  OF  ABSTRACT  IDEAS  IN  ROMAN  LITERATURE 

Minerva,  and  Salus  are  the  deities  invoked;  but  the  formula, 
instead  of  being  abbreviated  by  a  reference  to  the  same  words  used 
above  to  Jupiter,  as  is  the  case  with  the  prayers  to  Juno  and 
Minerva,  and  usually  with  those  to  Salus  (cf.  CIL.  VP,  p.  466, 
1.  13;  p.  510,  1.  20;  p.  514,  1.  4;  p.  524,  1.  17.  and  elsewhere),  is 
repeated  in  full  as  follows:  [Sa]lus  publica  populi  Romani  Q[uiri- 
tium  te  quaesumus  precam]urque  uti  tu  Neronem  ....  salvom 
incolumemque  con  [serves  et  in  reliquom  malae  vjaletudinis  primo 
quoque  [tempore  praestes  expertem  ....].  The  reason  for  this 
unusual  repetition  lies  apparently  in  the  conscious  recognition  that 
Salus  was  the  special  patron  of  health.  Moreover,  as  Aesculapius 
and  Hygieia-Salus  were  of  Greek  origin,  and  the  Greek  religion  did 
not  prescribe  a  male  sacrifice  to  a  male  deity  and  a  female  to  a 
female  as  the  Roman  did  (Wissowa  R.-K.,  p.  137),  the  exceptional 
sacrifice  in  CIL.  VI.  2037  =  VI.  32352,  Saluti  eius  b(ovem) 
m(arem),  if  the  copy  is  correct,  may  have  been  due  to  a  confusion 
of  the  Roman  goddess  with  the  Greek. 

On  March  30  Salus  populi  Romani  was  worshiped  together  with 
Janus,  Concordia  (above,  p.  12),  and  Pax.  In  the  farm-calendars 
she  is  mentioned  with  Spes  and  Diana  as  divinities  to  receive  sacri- 
fices in  August,  and  she  was  doubtless  a  household  goddess  (cf.  her 
name  on  a  gem  (XL  6712^®^),  and  on  a  clay  vessel  (II.  6257^^^), 
but  it  is  surprising  that  we  have  no  private  inscription  to  her 
in  Rome.  Like  Victoria  and  Fortuna,  she  is  often  very  closely 
coupled  with  the  great  gods  (III.  10109;  Uann  epig.  1899,  7),  and 
she  seems  to  have  had  a  temple  with  the  Capitoline  trio  in  Lam- 
baesis  (VIII.  2648)  and  with  Roma  in  Pergamum  (III.  399).  She 
was  worshiped  throughout  the  Empire  (cf.  Claudian  Carm.  Min. 
30.  188),  with  temples  at  Venusia  (IX.  427),  Ariminum  (XL 
361),  Capera  (II.  806),  and  with  other  cults  in  Lugdunum  (XIII. 
1782),  Pompeii  {Notizie  1891,  p.  265),  and  Britain  (VII.  100). 
If  we  may  judge  from  the  mention  of  a  flaminica  in  Urbs  Salvia 
near  Ancona  and  the  probable  derivation  of  that  city's  name, 
apparently  Salus  was  the  patron  deity  of  that  city.  It  is  somewhat 
surprising  that  the  regular  Roman  armies  did  not  honor  her  (Domas- 
zewski  op.  cit.,  p.  43),  although  she  was  a  favorite  deity  of  the 
equites  singulares  (see  Fortuna  above,  p.  11). 

We  may  also  mention  in  this  connection  Hygieia,  who  came  into 
Rome  as  part  of  the  cult  of  Aesculapius  in  293  b.  c,  and  existed 


DEIFIED  ABSTRACTS  AS  INDIVIDUAL  CULTS  1 5 

long  after  she  was  officially  identified  with,  and  absorbed  by,  Salus 
in  i8o  B.C.  Thus  in  153  a. d.  we  find  a  lex  collegi  Aesculapi  et 
Hygiae  (sic)  in  Rome  (VI.  10234),  but  it  is  noticeable  that  here,  and 
in  nearly  all  the  inscriptions  where  the  Greek  form  occurs,  the  wor- 
shipers are  Greek  (e.g.,  X.  1546,  1571 ;  ^I.  2092;  VI.  17,  18,  19; 
IX.  5823).  Rarely  is  the  goddess  mentioned  apart  from  Aescula- 
pius (Orelli  1582;  XL  4128,  5025).  In  the  temple  of  Aesculapius 
and  Salus  in  Lambaesis  were  altars  to  Aesculapius  and  Hygieia. 

Valetudo,  or  Bona  Valetudo,  is  a  variant  and  translation  of 
Hygieia,  apparently  used  to  distinguish  the  Hygieia-Salus  from 
the  native  Salus  of  general  welfare.  So  on  the  denarius  of  M. 
Acilius  Glabrio  (54  b.  c.)  appears  the  head  of  Salus  on  the  one  side 
with  the  name  Salutis,  and  the  figure  of  Hygieia  on  the  other  with 
the  title  Valetu(do).  Also  in  a  bilingual  inscription  from  the 
Asclepieion  of  Athens  (III.  7279)  Valetudo  stands  as  the  equiva- 
lent of  *YyieLrj.  Much  more  ancient,  however  (third  century 
B.  c.?),  is  the  inscription  from  Lecce  in  southern  Italy  (IX.  3812)  : 
V.  Vetius  Sa.  f.  Valetudne  d.  d.  1.  m.  See  also  IX.  3813 :  Annius 
Vecus  Valetudne  donum  dat.  In  Africa  at  Auzia  a  public  temple 
was  dedicated  in  235  a.  d.  to  our  deity  with  the  full  name  Bona 
Valetudo  (VIII.  20747)  ;  cf.  VIII.  9610  at  Manliana  in  the  same 
region:  Bonae  Valetudini  sacrum  ex  responso  Herculis  L.  Pesc(ius) 
Honoratus  sac(erdos)  d.  d.  d.  p.  CCXXII. 
\  Victoria. — ^The  first  known  temple  to  Victoria  was  founded 

August  I,  294  B.C.,  upon  the  Palatine  (Liv.  x.  33.  9;  xxix.  14. 
14).  It  was  on  the  clivus  Victoriae,  but  its  exact  position  is  uncer- 
tain. This  and  the  adjoining  chapel  of  Victoria  Virgo,  founded  in 
193,  are  the  only  seats  of  this  cult  in  Rome  of  which  we  hear.  The 
early  history  of  the  goddess  has  been  much  disputed  recently. 
Formerly  it  was  commonly  held  that  she  was  a  very  ancient 
divinity,  going  back  in  origin  to  Vica  Pota,  with  whom  she  was 
confused  (Asconius,  p.  13).  Her  equivalent  was  seen  in  the 
Sabine  goddess  Vacuna  (Preller  I,  pp.  408  ff. ;  II,  p.  244,  n.  3;  cf. 
Wissowa,  p.  44,  n.  3).  Recently,  however,  Wissowa  (R.-K.,  pp. 
127  f.),  upon  evidence  at  first  sight  very  significant,  has  advanced 
the  theory  that  this  cult  was  an  offshoot  from  that  of  Jupiter  Victor. 
He  calls  attention  to  the  facts  that  (i)  in  the  records  of  the  sacri- 
fices of  the  Arvales  to  the  gods  in  behalf  of  the  ruling  house  we 
find,  following  the  Capitoline  trinity,  at  one  time  Jupiter  Victor,  at 


1 6        DEIFICATION  OF  ABSTRACT  IDEAS  IN  ROMAN  LITERATURE 

another  Victoria,  and  in  one  case  (VI.  2086,  1.  27)  the  two  are 
coupled  in  a  pair  thus:  lovi  Victori  b(ovem)  m(arem)  a(uratum) 
et  Victor iae  b(ovem)  f  (eminam)  a(uratam)  ;  (2)  the  temple  of 
Victoria  on  the  Palatine  was  built  a  year  after  that  of  Jupiter 
Victor  on  the  Quirinal(  ?).* 

These  facts,  shrewdly  noted  and  ingeniously  fitted  together, 
are  certainly  indicative  of  a  close  connection  between  the  said  cults ; 
nevertheless,  I  do  not  believe  they  are  sufficient  to  establish  the 
genesis  of  Victoria  from  Jupiter.  For,  in  the  first  place,  the  Arval 
Brothers,  wishing  to  make  their  list  complete  and  inclusive  of 
deities  presiding  over  all  phases  of  the  emperor's  life,  would  think 
in  some  cases  of  Jupiter  Victor  as  the  helper  toward  victory,  at 
other  times  would  cover  that  idea  by  naming  Victoria  herself. 
Naturally  Jupiter  Victor  would  be  named  oftener  than  the  other 
gods  with  the  same  cognomen,  e.  g.,  Mars,  Hercules,  or  Venus, 
because  of  his  supreme  importance  and  greater  prestige. 

As  to  the  coupling  of  the  two  deities  by  the  word  et  in  VI. 
2086,  1.  2^  (213  A.  D.),  this  is  done  for  the  purpose  of  filling  out 
and  dwelling  on  the  idea  of  victory,  much  in  the  same  way  as  in 
the  reign  of  Trajan  prayers  were  uttered  to  lovis  Victor,  Mars 
Victor,  Victoria,  and  Hercules  Victor,  the  chief  gods  of  victory 
(VI.  2074).  And  if  a  more  significant  meaning  be  seen  in  this 
use  of  et,  and  it  be  granted  that  the  Arvals  saw  in  Victoria  a 
feminine  counterpart  to  the  great  god  of  victory,  it  by  no  means 
follows  that  such  a  conception  of  the  third  century  a.  d.  was  general 
or  was  held  in  the  €arly  republic  when  the  cult  began.  Of  course, 
Jupiter  Victor  would  often  be  coupled  with  Victoria,  oftener  possi- 
bly than  any  other  god;  but  the  other  deities  were  also,  to  some 
extent.  In  fact,  a  very  good  theoretical  case  for  Mars  Victor  as  the 
original  starting-point  might  be  made  out  from  the  facts  (i)  that 
Victoria  follows  directly  upon  Mars  Pater  and  Mars  Victor  in  the 
above-named  inscription,  while  lovis  Victor  has  preceded  and  is 
separated  by  Salus  from  this  group;  (2)  that  Mars  and  Victoria 
are  very  frequently  joined  in  inscriptions — e.g.,  VII.  220;  III. 
1098,  5790,  5897,  5898;  XIII.  6593.  In  Raetia  (III.  14370)  the 
two  divinities  had  a  common  temple. 

The  second  point  rests  on  the  supposed  inner  connection  between 

*  Gilbert  {Rom  in  Alterthum  III,  p.  428)  saw  a  connection  between  the  two 
cults,  on  the  supposition  that  this  latter  temple  was  on  the  Palatine. 


DEIFIED  ABSTRACTS  AS  INDIVIDUAL  CULTS  1 7 

the  founding  of  the  temples  of  Jupiter  Victor  and  of  Victoria  in  suc- 
cessive years.  But  that  this  is  more  than  a  coincidence  is  by  no 
means  sure.  At  all  events,  the  natalis  of  the  latter  was  on  the 
Kalends  and  not  the  Ides,  which  is  the  date  sacred  to  Jupiter  Victor  ; 
and  since  the  location  of  this  cult  is  uncertain,  the  argument  from 
space  relations  is  entirely  lacking. 

On  the  whole,  therefore,  this  theory  is  not  convincing,  and  it 
is  much  simpler  to  consider  our  goddess  an  independent  deification 
of  a  very  early  date.  The  notion  of  victory  is  quite  as  important 
and  general  as  that  of  the  sky  or  of  war.  To  the  early  Romans 
engaged  in  struggles  against  their  hostile  neighbors  it  was  an  all- 
important  and  common  conception,  and  to  me  it  seems  quite  as  prob-  I 
able  that  they  thought  of  a  special  spirit  granting  them  success  in  ■ 
war  as  that  they  thought  of  it  as  coming  from  their  sky-god. 
From  the  general  notion  of  victory,  any  god  might  be  looked  upon 
as  assisting  toward  it,  and  thus  we  find  Jupiter  (lovis).  Mars, 
Hercules,  Venus,  Diana,  Fortuna,  Minerva,  and  Lar  with  the  cog- 
nomen victor  or  victrix  respectively.  (Cf.  Carter  De  deorum 
romanorum  cognominibus  under  "victor;"  A.  Baudrillart  Divinites 
de  la  Victoire,  p.  84.) 

Furthermore,  ancient  evidence  points  to  this  deification  as  a 
native  Italic  cult.  The  Sabines  worshiped  her  under  the  name 
Vacuna,  if  we  may  trust  Varro  (Aero,  ad  Hor.  Epp.  i.  ic  49),  who 
probably  is  corroborated  by  the  inscription  of  Vespasian  (XIV. 
3485).**  Victoria  was  also  honored  in  Latium,  if  we  may  trust  the 
word  Vitoria  (a  dialectal  peculiarity  or  a  mistake  for  Victoria)  on 
a  mirror  (I.  58)  and  on  a  cestus  (Baudrillart,  pp.  48  f.),  and  among 
the  Marsi  {CIL.  I.  183,  184).  Finally,  Dionysius  Halicarnassus 
(I.  32)  states  that  there  was  an  ancient  altar  in  her  honor  upon 
the  Palatine. 

In  the  face,  therefore,  first  of  the  belief  of  the  ancient  Romans 

•  See  Baudrillart  op.  citu,  pp.  32  ff.  I  agree  in  the  main  with  the  author's 
conclusions,  though  nothing  certain  can  be  proved  as  to  the  identity  of  this 
temple  with  the  ancient  shrine  of  Vacuna.  An  analogue,  however,  may  be  cited 
for  the  replacing  of  the  old  name  Vacuna  by  the  new  Victoria  in  the  substitution 
of  Salus  for  Hygieia  in  prayers  by  order  of  the  authorities  in  charge  of  the 
Sibylline  books  in  180  B.C.  (Liv.  xl.  37.  2)  ;  also  in  the  fluctuation  between  the 
designations  Aesculapius  et  Hygia  and  Aesculapius  et  Salus  on  the  temple  and 
altars  in  Lambaesis  (VIIL  zsygz,  2589,  2590). 


1 8       DEIFICATION  OF  ABSTRACT  IDEAS  IN  ROMAN  LITERATURE 

and  their  antiquarian  Varro,  and  of  the  evidence  from  inscriptions, 
which  point  toward  cults  of  Victoria  among  Sabines,  Marsians,  aind 
Latins ;  second,  of  the  general  recognition  of  a  spirit  of  victory  in 
Vica  Pota  going  back  perhaps  to  509  B.C.,  it  is  not  safe  to  establish 
a  theory  of  origin  based  on  a  fancied  relation  whose  main  support 
is  a  single  inscription  of  the  late  empire.  Mommsen's  identification 
with  Vitula,  "Exultation,"  is  due  to  an  error  of  Macrobius  (Sat. 
iii.  2.  11). 

Victoria  was  apparently  never  worshiped  outside  the  sphere  of 
military  conquest.  As  was  noticed  above,  her  name  was  very  fre- 
quently joined  with  that  of  Mars,  especially  in  Gaul  and  the  eastern 
provinces  where  they  had  temples  together  (III.  14370®,  XIII. 
6593;  cf.  III.  1098,  5790,  5897,  5898).  Fortuna  is  another  com- 
mon associate  (XIV.  4002;  VI.  2314;  cf.  Baudrillart,  pp.  87  f.,  for 
other  examples  of  her  cult).  Among  the  dii  militares  she  stood 
next  in  rank  to  Jupiter  and  Mars.  But  the  armies  specialized  the 
notion  to  represent  either  the  victorious  might  of  the  Imperator 
(with  reference  often  to  a  particular  victory)  or  the  power  of  the 
troops.  This  specialization  is  strikingly  illustrated  by  an  inscription 
from  Tunis,  Africa    (Cagnat.   L'ann  epig.    1895,   ^o.   71)  :     Pro' 

salute   et   victoriis    Imp.    Caes Gordiani    Pii    Felicis    Aug. 

....  cum   statuis   Victoriarum   tribus  ....  aedificavit   et    dedi- 

cavit Here  the  emperor  has  a  temple  to  his  several  Victories, 

each  having  her  own  statue.  There  is  nothing  but  pure  flattery  of 
the  emperor,  and  it  is  not  the  goddess  who  was  honored,  but  the 
victories  themselves  were  exalted  as  divine.® 
\  Spes. — During  the  First  Punic  War,  in  258  b.  c,  a  temple  was 
erected  to  Spes  in  the  Forum  Holitorium,  whose  natalis  was  August 
I  (Fasti  Vallenses,  CIL.  I,  p.  320),  but  it  is  quite  probable  that  this 
deification  was  made  much  earlier  than  this  date.  For  the  name 
Spes  Vetus,  known  throughout  Roman  history,  referred  to  a  district 
near  the  Porta  Labicana,  and  was  probably  given  to  an  older  sanc- 
tuary of  Spes  to  distinguish  it  from  the  later  more  prominent  public 
temple.  There  is,  however,  little  warrant,  as  Wissowa  (R.-K.,  pp. 
273  f.)  has  shown,  for  assuming  with  Preller  (II,  p.  253)  that  she 
was  an  agricultural  deity  connected  with  Venus,  the  Italic  goddess 
of  the  garden.    While  Tibullus  in  i.  i.  9  prays  that  she  may  not 

•Victoria,  cited  as  a  deity  in  Index,  L'ann.  epig.  1903,  no.  107,  is,  of  course, 
only  a  woman's  name,  as  is  shown  by  the  epitaph  accompanying  it. 


DEIFIED  ABSTRACTS  AS  INDIVIDUAL  CULTS  I9 

fail  the  farmer,  but  give  him  heaps  of  grain/  in  ii.  6.  20-28  he 
generaHzes  her  functions,  viz.: 

Spes  favet  et  fore  eras  semper  ait  melius 
Spes  alit  agricolas,  Spes  sulcis  credit  aratis 

semina,  quae  magno  fenore  reddat  ager; 
haec  laqueo  volucres,  haec  captat  arundine  pisces 

cum  tenues  hamos  abdidit  ante  cibus : 
Spes  etiam  valida  solatur  compede  vinctum 

(crura  sonant  ferro,  sed  canit  inter  opus)  ; 
Spes  facilem  Nemesim  spondet  mihi  sed  negat  ilia. 

Ei  mihi,  ne  vincas,  dura  puella,  deam. 

In  Plautus  (e.g.,  Cist.  670,  Spes  sancta),  where  we  meet  first  in 
literature  with  this  goddess,  the  meaning  is  always  general  in  the 
several  passages  referring  to  her  (Bacch.  893;  Pseud.  709;  Merc. 
867;  Rud.  231,  275),  and  in  later  literature  there  is  no  trace  of  this 
assumed  original  specification.  The  figures  with  the  pomegranate 
bud  or  flower  ®  are  merely  symbolical  like  the  cornucopia,  and  prob- 
ably go  back  to  the  representation  of  the  Greek  *EAiris;  cf.  Elpis 
and  Nemesis  on  a  marble  vase  in  Rome,  the  former  holding  a 
branch  in  the  left  hand  and  a  pomegranate  flower  in  the  thumb  and 
first  finger  of  the  right  (Roscher,  see  Elpis).  Macrobius  (i.  21, 
24)  represents  lustitia  (Virgo)  holding  a  wheat-ear  in  her  hand. 
As  a  deity  dear  to  mankind  her  full  name  is  Bona  Spes,  found 
on  a  seal,  a  brass  ring  at  Rome,  and  an  amphora  (XI.  6705^**; 
IX.  6080).  She  had  temples  in  Ostia  (XIV.  375^^),  an  altar  at 
Aricia   (XIV.  2158),  and  statues  mentioned  as  gifts  to  Fortuna 

'  It  would  be  as  valid  to  suppose  that  Pax  was  originally  a  garden  deity 
from  Tibullus  i.  10.  45  : 

At  nobis  Pax  alma  veni  spicamque  teneto 

perfluat  et  pomis  candidus  ante  sinus 
especially  as  Ovid  (Fasti  i.  104)  says: 

pax  Cererem  nutrit,  pacis  alUmna  Ceres. 

"  It  is  difficult  to  explain  the  meaning  of  this  symbol.  Possibly  in  the  bud 
and  the  opening  flower  there  is  hope  of  a  perfect  future.  At  any  rate,  the  fact 
that  Indulgentia  also  carries  a  flower  in  the  same  position  on  coins  of  Alexander 
Severus  (Cohen*  IV,  no.  65)  shows  that  the  symbolic  content  was  lost  and  this 
symbol  came  to  be  merely  conventional.  In  the  same  way  Concordia  was  given 
the  olive  branch  without  reference  to  any  material  sphere.  On  the  other  hand, 
there  may  be  some  support  for  Preller's  view  in  a  dedication  to  Fortuna,  Spes,  and 
Venus  (VI.  i5594)»  where,  besides,  a  globe,  pole,  wheel,  and  crown  with  Cupids 
and  a  dove,  attributes  of  Fortuna  and  Venus,  we  find  a  bough  laden  with  apples. 


20        DEIFICATION  OF  ABSTRACT  IDEAS  IN  ROMAN  LITERATURE 

(XIV.  2853,  2867).  With  the  latter  she  is  often  connected. 
Horace  (Carm.  i.  35.  21)  places  her  with  Fides  in  the  retinue  of 
Fortuna,  and  in  Capua  these  three  have  a  cult  in  close  conjunction 
(X.  3775).  But  whereas  she  is  contrasted  favorably  with  Fortuna 
in  an  epigram,  Fortuna  innocentem  saepe,  numquam  Bona  Spes 
deserit  (Ribbeck  Appendix  Sententiarum  II,  1.  255),  sepulchral 
inscriptions  often  mock  her ;  e.  g.  XL  6433,  Spes  et  Fortuna,  valete, 
nil  mihi  vobiscum  est:  alias  deludite  quaeso. 

By  the  emperors  she  was  worshiped  with  special  regard  to  the 
youth,  the  "hope"  of  the  house,  after  Augustus  established  a  special 
supplicatio  to  her  and  luventas  on  the  anniversary  of  his  assump- 
tion of  the  toga  virilis  (October  18).  Only  once,  however,  was 
she  brought  into  the  prayers  of  the  Arval  Brothers  (VP,  2043,  1- 
10).    For  other  references  to  Spes  Augusta  see  Wissowa  op.  cit. 

Fides. — The  conception  of  good-faith  was  made  sacred  in  the 
dim  antiquity  of  the  Roman  state,  although  the  first  temple  of 
which  we  hear  was  founded  on  the  Capitol  jLii^_254_or  250  b.  c. 
Tradition  ascribed  this  deification  to  Numa  or  the  Sabines  (Plut. 
Numa  16;  Dion.  Hal.  ii.  75;  Varro  L.L.  v.  74),  and  the  antiquity  of 
this  goddess  was  designated  by  the  epithet  cana;  cf.  Verg.  Aen. 
i.  292,  Cana  Fides  et  Vesta,  Remo  cum  fratre  Quirinus  lura  dabunt. 
Better  evidence,  however,  is  her  relation  with  the  ritual  of  the 
ancient  flamens  (Livy  i.  24.  i). 

The  idea  of  faith  and  fidelity  had  a  close  association  with 
Jupiter  from  the  earliest  times,  and  with  the  title  Dius  Fidius  the 
great  god  of  the  heavens  was  worshiped  in  a  temple  on  the  Quiri- 
nal  founded  466  b.  c.  It  is  the  usually  accepted  theory  that  Fides 
was  an  offshoot  of  this  cult  (Preller  I,  p.  251 ;  Wissowa,  pp.  48, 
123  f.),  on  the  following  evidence:  (i)  The  fact,  above  mentioned, 
that  the  three  flamens  of  Jupiter,  Mars,  and  Quirinus  rode  annually 
to  the  temple  of  Fides  on  the  Capitol,  and,  with  their  right  hands 
covered  to  the  tips  by  white  bands,  offered  sacrifice.  The  function 
of  the  Flamen  Dialis  shows  that  he  was  in  early  times  connected 
with  the  worship  of  Fides.  (2)  The  proximity  of  the  temple  of 
Fides  to  that  of  Jupiter  Optimus  Maximus.  This  is  assured  by 
Cato's  remark,  quoted  by  Cicero  (De  off.  iii.  29)  :  qui  iusiurandum 
violat,  is  Fidem  violat,  quam  in  Capitolio  vicinam  lovis  O.  M.,  ut 
in  Catonis  oratione  est,  maiores  nostri  voluerunt.  (3)  The  cult 
of  Dius  (Diovis)  Fidius  on  the  Quirinal. 


DEIFIED   ABSTRACTS   AS   INDIVIDUAL  CULTS  21 

These  facts  certainly  indicate  a  close  connection  of  "faith" 
with  the  supreme  god  of  Olympus,  which  the  Romans  themselves 
recognized.  Whether  it  means  more  than  this — i.  e.,  an  actual 
genesis — cannot  be  demonstrated.  For,  without  taking  up  the 
general  question  of  such  evidence  as  (2)  and  (3),  which  will  be 
discussed  later  (p.  65),  one  or  two  objections  present  them- 
selves. Why,  if  the  annual  sacrifice  were  a  relic  of  a  rite  peculiar 
to  Jupiter,  did  the  other  flamens  take  part?  Is  it  not  as  simple  to 
believe,  with  Livy  (whether  Numa  instituted  the  ceremony  or  not 
is  immaterial),  that  it  was  a  rite  intended  to  show  that  faith  was  a 
basic  principle  of  the  state,  that  Fides  therefore  took  front  rank 
as  a  state-cult,  and  that  they  bound  themselves  to  good- faith?  Cf. 
Aulus  GelHus  xx.  i.  39:  sed  omnium  (virtutum)  maxime  atque 
praecipue  fidem  colunt  sanctamque  habuit  tarn  privatim  quam 
publice.  On  the  other  hand,  the  most  positive  evidence  of  all  is 
lacking,  viz.,  the  coincidence  of  dedication  days.  The  date  of 
Fides,  the  Kalends  of  October,  is  not  the  same  as  that  of  Dius 
Fidius,  the  Nones  of  June,  nor  a  day  sacred  to  Jupiter. 

The  full  name  of  the  goddess  was  Fides  publica  populi  Romani  ^ 
Quiritium  and  had  reference  to  the  strict  maintenance  of  a  pledge 
which  was  the  meaning  of  the  symbolic  ritual;  cf.  also  Catullus 
XXX.  II  f.  However,  only  one  inscription  from  the  republican  / 
period  is  extant,  on  a  third-century  cippus  from  Picenum.  In  the 
empire  the  customary  cognomen  Augusta  was  given  her  also  (IX. 
5422,  5845)  and  the  phase  of  her  cult  emphasized  was  that  of 
loyalty  to  the  emperor.  One  curious  inscription  (X.  5903)  possibly 
refers  to  conjugal  fidelity.  Another  (IX.  60),  on  the  tomb  of 
a  trader  which  alludes  to  his  anxiety  concerning  trade  and 
expenses,  regards  her  apparently  as  the  patroness  of  commercial 
credit,  as  follows: 

Alma  Fides,  tibi  ago  grates,  sanctissima  diva;  f\ 

fortuna  infracta  ter  me  fessum  recreasti;  {' 

tu  digna  es,  quam  mortales  optent  sibi  cuncti. 

Though  represented  as  a  military  deity  on  coins  (Fides  legionum, 
etc.),  she  is  not  found  among  the  cults  of  the  army.® 
N         Hongs. — This  deity  was  rarely  honored  outside  the  sphere  of 

"One  veteran,  however,  dedicates  an  offering  to  her  (III.  14342^).  Inscrip- 
tions are  rare,  although  the  cult  lasted  probably  as  late  as  Arcadius,  Honorius, 
and  Theodosius  (Notizie  1880,  p.  53). 


/ 


22        DEIFICATION  OF  ABSTRACT  IDEAS  IN  ROMAN  LITERATURE 

war/®  His  temple  was  vowed  in  the  war  with  the  Ligurians,  233 
B.  c,  and  sooij  afterward  was  dedicated.  In  205  M.  Claudius 
Marcellus  built  a  temple  of  Virtus  in  close  connection  with  it,  so 
that  these  two  cults  became  virtually  one,  and  dedications  to  Honos 
alone  are  rare.  (Examples  are  V.  5892,  5869,  4449;  XII.  1815,  III. 
5123.  The  usual  order  is  Honos  et  Virtus,  but  the  reverse  occurs 
in  III.  3307.)  Marius  built  upon  some  hillside  another  temple  of 
beautiful  symmetry,  but  without  marble  (Vitr.  praef.  17),  and 
Pompey  built  a  sanctuary  for  these  deities  at  the  same  time  with 
those  for  Felicitas  and  Venus  Victrix. 

The  origin  of  the  cult  is  unknown,  but  the  story  of  Cicero 
(De  legg.  ii.  58)  regarding  the  discovery  of  the  lamina  inscribed 
Honoris  near  the  Porta  Collina  and  the  removal  of  graves  to 
make  room  for  a  temple  there  probably  goes  far  back,  since  in  this 
vicinity  an  ancient  inscription  was  found  reading:  M.  Bicoleio  V.  1. 
Honore  donom  dedet  merito. 

As  a  military  deity,  Honos  was  individualized  with  reference 
to  the  legion,  and  also  very  curiously  to  its  eagle :  e.  g.,  XIII.  6690 : 
Genium  legioni  (sic)  XXII  Pr.  P.  F.  Honori  aquilae  leg.  s.  s.  (?) 
Aurelius  .  .  .  .  ;  also  XIII.  6708,  6752;  cf.  Domaszewski  op.  cit., 
pp.  41  f.  Probably  Honos  did  not  occupy  a  prominent  place  in  the 
religion  of  the  emperors.  He  is  mentioned  only  once  in  the 
prayers  of  the  Arval  Brothers  (CIL.  VI.  2044,  1.  5 ;  66  a.  d.),  when 
a  cow  was  sacrificed  to  him.  If  we  are  not  to  think  of  an  error 
in  the  record,  Wissowa's  brilliant  suggestion  of  Greek  influence  in 
this  cult  is  quite  plausible  (R.-K.,  p.  137).  For  an  analogous  case 
see  Salus,  above.  Moreover,  we  find  no  use  of  the  cognomen 
Augustus  except  on  a  coin  of  Antoninus  ( Coh.  II,  no.  449) .  At  Ter- 
racina  there  were  games  given  to  him  (X.  8260),  and  at  Narbo  a 
special  collegium  was  devoted  to  him  (XII.  4371). 

Ops. — Although  without  a  sanctuary  until  probably  the  third 
century  (293-218  b.  c),  and  worshiped  only  in  the  Regia  by  the 
Vestal  Virgins,  Ops  is  the  oldest  of  the  abstracts,  and  perhaps  the 
only  one  native  to  the  ancient  Romans;  for  her  name  is  preserved 
in  the  calendars  of  ancient  festivals  in  the  terms  Opalia  and  Opi- 
consiva.  This  latter  name  and  the  by-name  Ops  Consiva  identify 
her  closely  with  Consus,  as  Wissowa  (R.-K.,  p.  168,  and  Roscher 

"See,  however,  CIL.  V.  4449,  7468;  XI.  3147;  HI.  7599,  for  political  allu-. 
sions ;  V.  5892,  for  commercial.  Orelli  1815,  cited  by  Wissowa  in  Roscher,  is 
called  spurious  by  Henzen. 


N 


DEIFIED  ABSTRACTS  AS  INDIVIDUAL  CULTS  23 

III.  932)  has  shown,  the  connection  with  Saturn  having  been 
derived  from  the  false  identification  of  Saturn  with  Cronos,  and  of 
Ops  as  a  Roman  deity  of  the  earth  with  Rhea  or  Terra,  the  wife 
of  Cronos.  Varro  (  L.L.  v.  64)  considers  her  of  Sabine  origin, 
brought  into  Rome  by  Titus  Tatius. 

The  temple  on  the  Capitoline  is  not  mentioned  till  186  b.  c. 
(Aust.  De  aedihus,  no.  56).  Another  cult.  Ops  Opifera  in  the 
Forum  (  ?),  was  established  between  123  and  114  b.  c.  (Plin.  N.H. 
xi.  174;  Fasti  Amit.,  December  19).  As  the  early  cult  referred 
especially  to  the  abundance  of  the  crops,  it  is  possible  that  the 
latter  was  thought  of  particularly  as  a  goddess  of  assistance.  The 
word  ops  has  this  meaning  as  early  as  Ennius  (fragment  in  Vah- 
len  126;  cf.  Cic.  Tusc.  disp.  iii.  19.  44),  and  this  is  the  only  meaning 
of  opifer  found  in  literature  and  inscriptions ;  e.  g. :  Ennius  (ed. 
Vahlen,  p.  109),  fidem  opiferam  socium  advocaret;  Ovid.  Met.  xv. 
653,  cum  deus  Aesculapius  in  somnis  opifer  consistere  visus;  Orelli 
1753,  Fortunae  Opiferae  pro  salute;  etc.  The  sacrifice  mentioned 
in  the  calendar  of  the  Arvales  {CIL.  I^,  p.  326,  August  23)  to  Ops 
Opifera,  Volcanus,  luturna,  the  nymphs,  and  Quirinus,  would 
under  this  theory  have  been  performed  to  secure  help  in  case  of 
fire.^^  Outside  of  Rome  only  a  temple  at  Praeneste  is  known 
(XIV.  3007),  and  but  few  inscriptions  are  extant.  The  use  of 
Ops  in  literature  has  been  fully  and  accurately  treated  by  Wissowa 
in  Roscher  III.  935  if. 

LiBERTAS. — Much  difference  of  opinion  has  arisen  regarding 
the  external  facts  of  this  cult.  There  are  allusions  to  temples  of 
Libertas,  of  Jupiter  Libertas,  and  of  Jupiter  Liber  on  the  Aventine 
(Liv.  xxiv.  16.  19;  Mon.  Ancyr.  4.  6;  Fast.  Arval.,  September  i). 
Jordan  {Eph.  Epig.  I,  p.  237)  and  Aust  (op.  cit.  v.  Jupiter  Liber- 
tas) apparently  took  the  first  two  names  to  refer  to  the  same  cult. 
Wissowa  (Roscher  III.  2032,  R.-K.,  p.  126)  made  the  two  latter 
equivalent,  but  rightly  asserted  a  separate  temple  for  Libertas  built 
before  238  b.  c.  by  a  certain  Gracchus.  Following  Preller  (I,  p. 
195 ;  II,  pp.  252  f.),  he  derives  Libertas  from  Jupiter  Libertas,  whom 
all  the  above-named  scholars  consider  one  deity  (cf.  Aust.  in 
Roscher  II.  663  f.^^) — a  conclusion  supported  by  two  similar 
inscriptions  found  outside  Rome  (XIV.  2579;  XI.  658). 

"The  phrase  Opi  divinae  (IX.  2633),  seems  also  to  mean  "divine  help,"  but 
is  suspicious  ^Roscher  III.  935). 

"  Becker  IHandb.  der  r'dm.  Altert.,  p.  721),  Babelon  (op.  cit  I,  p.  473),  and 


24        DEIFICATION  OF  ABSTRACT  IDEAS  IN  ROMAN  LITERATURE 

On  this  theory,  the  intermediate  stage  in  the  differentiation  is 
found  in  Jupiter  Liber,  whose  function  of  creative  power  became 
subordinated  to  that  of  freedom.  (Cf.  CIL.  III.  14203^,  where 
Greek  slaves  set  up  a  statue  of  this  god  to  record  their  manumis- 
sion.) As  a  god  of  freedom,  then,  he  was  sometimes  called 
Jupiter  Libertas,  from  whom  Libertas  became  independent,  and 
her  relation  to  the  parent-deity  was  preserved  by  the  fact  that  her 
natalis  was  on  the  Ides  (cf.  Wissowa  R.-K.  loc.  cit.,  and  Carter 
op.  cit.,  p.  13). 

The  fundamental  idea  of  Libertas  was  apparently  personal 
liberty,  as  we  may  infer  from  the  fact  that  a  painting  of  the  battle 
in  which  the  slaves  secured  their  manumission  was  placed  in  the 
temple  in  238  b.  c.  (Liv.  ibid.).  During  the  regime  of  Caesar  the 
cult  stood  for  political  liberty,  freedom  from  despotism,  and  in 
this  sense  Brutus  and  Cassius  exalted  the  goddess.  Similarly,  in  the 
Empire,  after  the  death  of  despotic  rulers  like  Nero  and  Domitian, 
she  was  exalted  and  given  the  cognomen  Augusta  (11.  2035;  also 
V.  326,  Genio  Lib.  Aug.  may  perhaps  be  filled  out  as  Genio  Liber- 
tatis  Augustae).^^ 

Mens. — Mens  had  a  cult  upon  the  Capitol  founded  215  b.  c. 
natalis  June  8,  as  the  giver  of  intelligence  (August.  De  civ.  dei 
iv.  21;  Tertul.  Ad  nat.  ii.  15),  which  quality  the  Romans  deified 
after  their  disastrous  mistake  at  Trasimenus.  The  seat  of  her  cult 
in  southern  Italy  (Paestum),  and  the  dedication  of  the  cult  in 
Rome  in  conjunction  with  that  of  Venus  Erycina,  a  Sicilian  god- 
dess, point  to  Greek  origin;  but  the  assumption  by  Preller  that 
Mens  was  practically  a  cognomen  of  Venus  Erycina  is  not  war- 
ranted. (Cf.  Wissowa  R.-K.,  p.  260,  with  whom  I  agree  in  toto). 
Although  Mens  is  loosely  used  sometimes  for  animus,  "disposi- 
tion," in  literature  and  in  the  inscriptions  (e.g.,  XIII.  2313;  VIII. 
16463),  yet  we  have  no  evidence  for  understanding,  with  Preller, 
the  special  sense  of  a  "loyal  disposition"  in  the  worship  by  the 
guilds  of  slaves  and  freedmen  (I.  1156;  X.  472,  4636,  1550). 

Blanchet  (in  Daremberg  and  Saglio  III,  p.  1199)  hold  that  two  distinct  deities 
were  joined  in  one  cult.  It  is  certainly  difficult  to  explain  on  the  hypothesis  of 
one  cult  the  coin  of  the  Egnatian  gens,  which  almost  surely  represents  Jupiter 
and  Libertas  standing  on  the  porch  of  a  distyle  temple. 

"Mommsen  ad  loc.  is  mistaken  in  holding  this  impossible  on  the  ground 
that  lunoni  would  be  required;  cf.  Genio  Pacis  (VIII.  17832),  Genio  Victoriae 
(II.  2407),  etc. 


DEIFIED  ABSTRACTS  AS  INDIVIDUAL  CULTS  25 

Cicero  (De  legg.  ii.  19.  31 ;  De  nat.  deor.  ii.  61 ;  ii.  79;  Hi.  88) 
evidently  regarded  this  cult  with  great  honor,  and  frequently  cited 
it  as  a  typical  deified  abstraction  worthy  of  true  worship.  The 
cognomen  Salus  seems  to  have  been  given  to  Mens  in  the  following 
public  inscription  from  Tibur  (XIV.  3564:  Menti  Bonae  Saluti  Q. 
Caecilius  Q.  1.  Philadelphus,  P.  Aquillius  P.  1.  Bonus  mag. 
quinq.  ex  pec.  conl.  f.  c.  idemque  signum  dedicarunt).  But  see 
below,  p.  97.  . 

Virtus. — As  a  state  deity,  Virtus  was  not  a  goddess  of  virtue  in 
general,  but  of  courage  in  battle.  Our  first  official  notice  concern- 
ing her  couples  her  with  Honos,  with  whose  temple  Marcellus  joined 
one  for  her  (Liv.  xxvii.  5.  7;  xxix.  11.  3;  see  Honos  above).  We 
have  also,  however,  some  records  of  her  as  an  independent  deity. 
In  134  B.  c.  P.  Scipio  Africanus  Minor  erected  an  altar  to  com- 
memorate the  capture  of  Numantia.  While  we  hear  of  no  separate 
temple  in  Rome,  we  have  inscriptional  evidence  of  a  saltuarius  Vir- 
tutis  in  Ferrara  {CIL.  V.  2383),  a  collegium  in  Nepet  (XI.  3205), 
and  a  priest  in  Mauretania  (VIII.  9026,  9027),  which  imply 
temples. 

Few  inscriptions  to  Virtus  Augusta  are  extant.  Among  them 
are  VII.  397;  VIII.  16528;  II.  1062;  VII.  1135,  the  last-named  of 
which  is  quite  interesting.  It  is  upon  a  bas-relief  from  Britain 
referring  to  legio  II  victrix  pia  fidelis,  and  represents  Mars  Vic- 
tor, winged  Victories,  and  Virtus,  the  latter  bearing  a  vexillum 
inscribed  Virt(uti)  Aug(ustae).  (Cf.  Domaszewski,  p.  41;  Eph. 
epig.  III.  100.)  We  also  find  her  specialized  with  reference  to 
some  particular  emperor ;  e.  g.,  VIII.  7095,  statua  ^"^  aerea  Virtutis 
domini  n(ostri  Antonini)  ;  Uann.  epig.  1894,  no.  136,  Virtuti 
invicti  Imp. 

Since  Virtus  and  Bellona  were  both  goddesses  of  war,  they 
were  frequently  thought  of  together.  Bellona  was  called  the  escort 
or  attendant  of  Virtus,  deae  pedisequae  Virtutis  Bellonae  {Rev. 
arch.  XXXII  [1898],  p.  ^6s  =  L'ann.  epig.  1898,  no.  61).  In 
another  example  Bellona  is  the  cognomen  of  Virtus  in  the  fusion 
of  the  two  conceptions,  viz..  In  h.  d.  d.  d.  deae  Virtuti  Bellon(a)e^* 

c  "  Statues  of  Virtus  mentioned  here  and  in  XIV.  69  were  probably  of  the 
helmeted  Amazon  type  seen  on  coins  as  early  as  M.  Aquillius  (loi  B.C.;  see 
Engelhard  op.  cit.,  p.  60). 

"  The  fact  that  here  Bellona,  as  Dessau  3805  points  out,  is  probably  the 
Ma-Bellona  of  Cappadocia,  matters  little  upon  this  point. 


26        DEIFICATION  OF  ABSTRACT  IDEAS  IN  ROMAN  LITERATURE 

montem  Vaticanum  vetustate  conlabsum  (sic)  restituerunt  civitatis 
Mattiacorum,  etc.  Whether  in  V.  6507  Virtuti  Bellonae  one  or  two 
deities  are  mentioned  is  uncertain;  at  any  rate,  Virtus  is  more 
prominent.    Victoria  too  is  called  Virtutis  comes  (VIII.  18240). 

As  in  the  monuments,  so  in  literature,  Virtus  usually  is  "Valor" 
(Cic.  De  nat.  deor.  ii.  61.  79;  iii.  88;  De  legg.  ii.  19.  28;  and 
especially,  Phil.  xiv.  35).  The  Culex  (294  ff.)  represents  Venus 
and  Virtus  honoring  the  marriage  made  by  Peleus  and  Telamon. 
Statins  calls  her  "cruenta"  (Silv.  i.  662).  See  also  Flor.  i.  2; 
Apoll.  Sidon  ii.  502;  Amm.  Marc.  xiv.  6.  3;  and  Sil.  Ital.  v.  126; 
XV.  18,  in  which  latter  passage  Virtus  debates  against  Voluptas 
before  the  younger  Scipio. 

But  the  wider  meaning  of  worth  or  virtue  is  seen  in  a  few 
cases ;  e.  g.,  feminine  virtue  in  Ovid  Ars.  amat.  iii.  23.  Pliny 
(xxxv.  70)  describes  a  painting  by  Parrhasius  in  which  are  repre- 
sented Philiscus,  a  comic  poet,  Liber,  a  Thracian  nurse,  and  Virtus, 
who  from  the  connection  must  represent  excellence  in  composition 
of  comedy.  Here,  then,  Pliny  translated  the  Greek  'Aperrj.  St. 
Augustine  (op.  cit.  iv.  20,  21,  24)  conceived  of  Virtus  as  Worth  or 
Virtue,  and  said  that  Virtus  and  Felicitas  could  have  comprised 
sufficiently  all  the  ideas  worshiped  by  the  Romans.  Possibly  Virtus 
in  Horace  Carm.  saec.  58  stood  for  virtue. 
^  luvENTAS. — luventas,  later  Inventus,  did  not  receive  a  separate 
shrine  till  191,  but  the  deity  was  known  long  before  this  in  connec- 
tion with  the  great  temple  of  Jupiter  Capitolinus,  in  which  she  had 
an  aedicula  in  the  vestibule  of  the  cella  of  Minerva  (Plin.  N.H. 
xxxv.  108).  This  fact,  with  two  others — viz.,  that  every  youth 
who  assumed  the  toga  virilis  brought  an  offering  to  Jupiter  Opti- 
mus  Maximus,  and  that  two  inscriptions  (IX.  5574;  XL  3245)  read 
lovi  luventuti  (they,  however,  were  found  outside  of  Rome  and 
belong  to  the  imperial  period) — points  to  an  early  inner  relation 
between  the  cults. 

Later,  under  the  influence  of  Greek  mythology,  the  Roman  deity 
was  identified  with  Hebe,  a  goddess  of  a  similar  sphere,  but  personi- 
fied as  the  cup-bearer  of  Zeus  and  wife  of  Hercules — an  identifica- 
tion maintained  throughout  Latin  literature  (Cic.  Tusc.  disp.  i.  65; 
De  nat.  deor.  i.  112;  Hon  Carm.  i.  30.  8).  To  4ier  in  this  role  a 
supplication  was  made  in  218  (Liv.  xxi.  62-69)  at  the  temple  of 
Hercules,  and  a  new  temple  was  dedicated  near  the  Circus  Maximus 
by  C.  Licinius  Lucullus  in  191  (Liv.  xxxvi.  36.  7).    The  cult  seems 


DEIFIED  ABSTRACTS   AS   INDIVIDUAL  CULTS  27 

to  have  continued  in  the  charge  of  the  Luculli,  for  in  60  the  annual 
ludi  on  January  i  were  omitted  on  account  of  the  domestic  trouble 
of  M.  LucuUus  (see  Cic.  Ad  Att.  i.  18.  3,  and  Boot's  note).  Cicero 
says:  eius  {sc.  anni)  initium  eius  modi  fuit  ut  anniversaria 
sacra  luventatis  non  committerentur ;  nam  M.  Luculli  uxorem 
Memmius  suis  sacris  initiavit;  but  Wissowa  (Roscher  II.  765) 
uses  this  passage  with  reference  to  the  cult  on  the  Capitoline. 
If  he  is  right,  the  anniversaria  sacra  must  have  been  a  differ- 
ent festival  from  the  ludi  luventatis  vowed  by  Salinator,  which 
took  place  in  connection  with  the  temple  near  the  Circus.  Boot's 
conception  of  the  ludi  and  the  anniversaria  as  identical  seems  far 
more  probable.^^  If  it  is  correct,  it  follows  that  the  natalis  of  the 
temple  was  January  i,  which  is  supported  very  slightly  by  the  fact 
that  Livy  recounts  the  supplicatio  of  218  among  events  occurring  in 
the  winter  (ea  hieme,  xxi.  62.  i).  It  is  not  unlikely  that  the  dedica- 
tion of  the  temple  and  the  coincident  festival  were  made  in  accord- 
ance with  custom  on  the  day  of  the  previous  lectisternium.  At  all 
events,  I  think  the  anniversaria  sacra,  a  term  synonymous  with 
natalis,  must  be  referred  to  the  temple  at  the  Circus  Maximus,  or 
there  is  no  point  to  Cicero's  jest.  The  natalis,  therefore,  was  prob- 
ably January  i. 

At  Vienna  in  Gaul  the  cults  of  luventas  and  Mars  probably 
stood  in  close  connection,  the  former  having  intimate  relations  with 
the  iuvenes  as  the  fighting  force.  It  enjoyed  great  prestige,  for  many 
of  its  flamens  were  men  of  high  official  rank  in  the  municipality 
(cf.  CIL.  XII.  2613,  1869,  1870,  and  p.  219).  It  may  also  have 
been  closely  associated  with  the  cult  of  luventus  Augusta  with 
special  regard  to  the  assumption  of  the  toga  virilis  by  Augustus 
(X.  8375),  as  Wissowa  (op.  cit.,  p.  126  and  Roscher  II.  766) 
thinks,  but  it  is  surprising  that  the  cognomen  is  lacking  in  all  the 
mscriptions  pertaining  to  this  cult,  although  the  dedicators  were 
imperial  officials. 

PoLLENTiA. — Livy  (xxxix.  7.  8)  narrates  that  in  the  ludi 
Romani  of  the  year  187  b.  c.  a  mast  fell  in  the  Circus  Maximus  and 
knocked  down  the  statue  of  Pollentia,  in  place  of  which  two  others 
were  set  up  in  accordance  with  a  senatus  consul  turn — the  one  gilded, 
the  other  the  restofed  original  ( ?).    Very  likely  Plautus  alludes  to 

"  So  Gilbert  (op.  cit.  III.  93)  and  Hild  (in  Daremberg  and  Saglio,  see  luven- 
tas) take  it,  without,  however,  seeing  the  connection  that  Boot  makes.  Preller 
(I,  p.  261,  no.  3)  unaccountably  refers  the  ludi  to  the  cult  on  the  Capitol. 


28        DEIFICATION  OF  ABSTRACT  IDEAS  IN  ROMAN  LITERATURE 

her  in  Casina  819,  ut  potior  Pollentia  sit,  and  Rudens  530.  The 
connection  with  the  games  denotes  physical  strength.  Compare 
Valentia.  The  action  of  the  decree  of  the  Senate  and  the  position 
of.  the  statue  in  a  pubHc  sacred  place  show  that  the  cult  was  in 
charge  of  the  state.  Peter  (Roscher  II.  216)  considers  Pollentia  as 
probably  one  of  the  spirits  of  the  Indigitamenta ;  so  Preller  II, 
p.  213. 

PiETAS. — The  goddess  of  dutiful  affection  had  two  main  temples 
in  the  same  vicinity — one  founded  in  181  b.  c.  in  the  Forum  Holi- 
torium,  the  other  near  the  Circus  Flaminius  some  time  before  91 
(Obsequens  54).  Amatucci  (Rivista  di  storia  antica  VII.  i,  pp.  25- 
32)  ingeniously  argues  that  the  latter  was  the  older  cult  and  was 
founded  probably  between  233  and  215  b.  c.  His  theory  rests  on 
Cic.  De  legg.  ii.  28,  where  Mens,  Pietas,  Virtus,  and  Fides,  he 
maintains,  are  quoted  in  reverse  chronological  order.  But  this  is  not 
strictly  true,  for  the  cult  of  Virtus  was  founded  in  205,  and  even  if 
here  Cicero  may  have  been  thinking  of  Honos  (233),  with  whom 
Virtus  was  joined,  yet,  if  the  other  passages  in  which  he  mentions 
these  four  typical  deities  of  abstraction  be  examined,  it  will  be  seen 
at  once  that  he  keeps  no  fixed  order.  Note,  for  example,  De  legg. 
ii.  19,  Mentem  Virtutem  Pietatem  Fidem.  The  supposition  that  this 
cult  was  known  as  Pietas  patria,  and  that  the  other  in  the  Forum 
Holitorium  was  Pietas  Graeca,  is  absolutely  without  support,  and 
hence  the  association  and  origin  from  Aeneas,  the  pater  indiges,  is 
not  plausible. 

The  origin  of  the  cult,  in  fact,  is  unknown,  but  Wissowa's  con- 
jecture (R.-K.,  p.  275)  of  an  act  of  devotion  between  father  and 
son  in  battle  is  certainly  attractive.  The  Greek  story  of  the  maid 
who  nursed  her  father  (or  mother — the  tradition  varies)  is  entirely 
etiological  and  rightly  rejected.  (Cf.  the  extension  of  the  story  by 
Solinus  i.  124,  125.)  Plautus  probably  alludes  to  the  cult  in  Asina- 
ria  506  and  508,  Pietatem  piem,  Pietatem  colere;  Curculio  639, 
Pietas  mea;  and  Bacchides  1176,  mea  Pietas;  the  latter  play  having 
been  composed  as  late  as  189,  two  years  after  the  temple  was  vowed 
by  Glabrio. 

As  to  the  external  features  of  the  cult  we  have  no  evidence, 
except  that  in  Gaul  a  flamen  was  attached  to  the  worship  of  the 
goddess,  if  the  restoration  of  the  following  inscription  from  various 
fragments  by  Chenesseau  (in  charge  of  the  Thermae  Nerioma- 
genses)  be  correct:     Numinibus  Aug.  et  Ne'rio  deo  usibusq.  r.  p. 


DEIFIED  ABSTRACTS  AS  INDIVIDUAL  CULTS  29 

Bit(urigum)  Cub.  et.  vie.  flam  (en)  Rom(ae)  et  Aug(usti)  itemque 
flamen  Pietatis  {CIL.  XIII,  addenda  no.  1376). 

Felicitas. — This  deity  is  very  close  in  function  to  Fortuna  on 

^  the  one  side  and  Bonus  Eventus  on  the  other.  She  represents 
prosperity,  whether  secured  by  good  luck  or  by  effort,  while  Bonus 
Eventus  stands  for  the  good  issue  or  success  of  some  definite 
project.  (See  Augustine  op.  cit.  iv.  18  for  an  extensive  discussion 
of  the  distinction  between  Fortuna  and  Felicitas.)  The  first  temple 
known  to  us  was  built  in  the  Velabrum  in  151  b.  c.  The  supposition 
that  the  primary  meaning  of  Felicitas  was  fertility  is  not  convin- 
cingly substantiated  (Steuding  in  Roscher  I.  1473;  Preller  II,  p. 
356).  Her  earliest  representation  on  coins  of  the  Lollian  gens  has 
no  symbols  of  fertility,  and  the  later  attributes  of  ears  of  grain  only 
show  one  feature  of  the  prosperity  of  the  Empire  and,  like  others — 
the  cornucopia,  caduceus,  lance,  etc. — are  characteristic  of  other 
deities,  of  Fides  for  example.    Moreover,  the  Pompeian  inscription, 

-  Hie  habitat  Felicitas  (IV.  1454),  with  the  phallus,  is  most  probably 
explained  by  J.  Blanchet  (Daremberg  and  Saglio,  see  Felicitas)  as 
a  motto  accompanying  the  fascinus  to  avert  the  evil  eye  from  the 
bakery  in  which  it  stood.  Cf.  Uann.  epig.  1904,  no.  199,  or  Hiilsen 
Mitth.  des  Arch.  Inst.  1904,  p.  152:  invide,  qui  spectas,  hec  tibi 
poena  manet. 

Felicitas  occurs  on  the  inscriptions  of  the  equites  singulares  at 
Rome  directly  after  Mercury  (VI.  31140-45,  48,  49)  and  on  coins 
she  has  the  caduceus,  by  which  the  prosperity  of  commerce  is 
alluded  to.  She  was  one  of  the  most  important  deities  of  imperial 
times,  and  together  with  Salus  was  frequently  invoked  by  the  Arval 
Brothers  directly  after  Jupiter  and  Juno  and  Minerva ;  in  the  prayer 
for  Nero  and  Poppaea  in  65-66  a.  d.  she  is  the  only  deified  abstract 
mentioned.  Numerous  sacrifices  were  made  to  her  under  the  indi- 
vidualizing names  Felicitas  imperii, Caesarum, ^publica, 

Aug. 

The  divinity  with  whom  she  was  usually  associated  was,  of 
course,  Fortuna.  In  common  with  Victoria  she  had  a  cult  at  Ame- 
ria,  with  priests  and  flamens  of  high  civil  and  military  rank  (CIL. 
XI.  4367,  4371,  4373,  4395)-  It  had  special  relations  with  the 
princes  of  the  ruling  house,  and  the  lusus  iuvenum  were  a  part  of 
the  worship.^^     A  fragmentary  calendar  (XL  4346)   found  in  the 

"Blanchet  loc.  cit.,  p.  782  apparently  takes  the  word  Caesaris  to  refer  to 


30        DEIFICATION  OF  ABSTRACT  IDEAS  IN  ROMAN  LITERATURE 

same  place,  showing  the  festivals  of  certain  deities  and  the  victims 
of  sacrifice,  has  Victoria,  Felicitas  (  ?) ,  and  Fortuna  in  order.  The 
mention  of  the  Augustales  in  these  inscriptions  shows  a  close  rela- 
tion to  the  worship  of  the  emperors.  The  guild  names  itself  after 
Victoria  and  Felicitas,  and  may  be  compared  with  the  iuvenes  Her- 
culani  (X.  5657)  and  iuvenes  Nepessini  Dianenses  (XL  3210). 

Bonus  Eventus. — We  do  not  know  when  Bonus  Eventus 
became  a  public  deity,  but  our  earliest  evidence  is  the  representation 
of  his  head  on  a  coin  of  L.  Scribonius  Libb,  54  B.C.  (Babelon 
op.  cit.  II,  p.  427).  No  temple  is  mentioned  until  375  A.  d.  (Amm. 
Marc.  xxix.  6.  19),  when  a  porticus  in  the  Campus  Martius  was 
said  to  have  taken  its  name,  Eventus  Bonus,  from  the  proximity  of 
a  temple  of  this  god.  But  either  as  a  popular  or  as  a  public  deity 
he  was  widely  honored  in  the  early  stages  of  the  republic,  for  he  is 
named  with  Venus,  Minerva,  Robigus,  and  others  as  one  of  the 
twelve  agricultural  gods  (Varro  De  re  rust.  i.  i.  6;  but  see  note, 
p.  63).  Varro  defines  eventus  as  successus,  and  the  sphere  of  the 
god  was  extended  in  course  of  time  so  that  he  became  the  patron  of 
success  in  any  undertaking  and  differed  little  in  function  from  For- 
tuna and  Felicitas.  Cf.  Lucan  Phars.  iv.  730,  fraudibus  eventum 
Fortuna.  In  two  sepulchral'inscriptions  (VI.  26554,  2335)  Bonus 
eventus  stands  probably  as  a  supposed  address  to  the  passer-by 
equivalent  to  dyadrj  Tvxrj,  which  is  more  strictly  bona  fortuna. 
Domaszewski  (Westdeufsche  Zeitschrift  XXIV  [1905],  pp.  76  f.) 
has  shown  that  he  was  more  especially  a  god  of  commerce,  and  he 
links  this  province  with  that  of  agriculture  through  the  fact  that 
the  word  fruges,  which  in  early  prayers,  like  Cato  De  re  rust.  141,  2, 
utique  tu  fruges  ....  grandire  beneque  evenire  siris  (cf.  Paulus, 
p.  220,  id  sacrificium  fiebat  ob  frugum  eventum),  had  the  meaning 
"crops,"  gained  later  the  meaning  ''profit." 

The  primary  specification  of  the  god's  function  was  preserved  in 
art  and  on  coins,  where  wheat-ears  are  the  usual  attributes.  He  is 
commonly  represented  on  brick-stamps  (XV.  1671),  gems  (XI. 
6716),  bas-reliefs  (VII.  97),  as  a  nude  youth  with  chlamys  hang- 
ing from  the  left  arm  and  ears  of  grain  in  the  right  hand.  Euphra- 
nor  made  a  statue  representing  him  holding  a  bowl  in  the  right 
hand  and  poppies  and  grain  in  the  left  (Plin.  A^.  H.  xxxiv.  yy).  A 
group  statue  of  Bonus  Eventus  and  Bona  Fortuna  by  Praxiteles 

the  emperor.  The  Corpus  is  inconsistent  in  filling  out  Caesar(um)  or  Caesar(is) 
in  XI.  4373  and  4395. 


DEIFIED  ABSTRACTS  AS  INDIVIDUAL  CULTS  3 1 

Stood  Upon  the  Capitoline  (Plin.  xxxvi.  23;  Domaszewski  loc.  cit., 
p.  79),  and  a  marble  relief  representing  the  same  deities  is  still 
extant  in  Great  Britain.  In  the  latter,  Bonus  Eventus  is  pictured  as 
wearing  the  toga  and  the  limus,  and  is  pouring  out  a  libation  upon 
an  altar  ^^  (Domaszewski,  p.  74). 

Bonus  Eventus  is  found  with  the  cognomen  Augustus  in  only- 
one  inscription:  11.  4612,  Bono  Event(o)  Aug(usto)  sacr.  P. 
Aemilius  Gemellus  sevir  Aug(ustalis).  But  this  shows  an  inti- 
mate connection  with  the  worship  of  the  emperor.  Cf.  also  V. 
4203,  Bonum  Eventum  sevir (orum)  sociorum  Sex.  Numisius  For- 
tunatus  et  L.  Lucretius  Primianus  seviri  Aug(ustales).  Several 
inscriptions  reveal  interesting  motives  for  the  worship  of  this  god. 
In  VIII.  18890  a  man  willed  an  altar  probably  to  commemorate  his 
successful  life;  in  II.  1471  a  priestess  set  up  a  tablet  on  account  of 
the  honor  of  being  chosen  to  hold  the  ludi  circenses.  Another,  III. 
1 128,  is  very  obscure  because  of  its  mutilated  condition.  In  it  the 
phrase  naturae  Boni  Eventus  occurs,  in  which  the  god  is  generally 
recognized  by  scholars.  Mommsen  thought  the  deity  here  presided 
over  the  working  of  a  mine.  Domaszewski  (loc.  cit.,  p.  y^j)  thinks 
that  behind  the  name  an  oriental  god  was  obscured,  as  also,  prob- 
ably, in  III.  8244,  Domnae  reginae  et  Domno  et  Bono  Evento.  It  is 
also  possible  that  the  phrase  contains  merely  common  nouns,  viz., 
naturae  boni  eventus. 

B.      OF  THE  EMPIRE 

During  the  last  century  of  the  Republic  no  new  abstract  deities 
appear  to  have  been  added  to  the  state  religion.  With  the  establish- 
ment of  Felicitas  the  movement  for  enshrining  the  virtues  died  out. 
Was  this  due  to  a  feeling  that  they  had  been  covered  thoroughly, 
and  to  opposition  on  the  part  of  the  pontiffs  against  a  further  exten- 
sion of  this  cycle  of  deities  for  fear  of  going  to  ridiculous  extremes  ? 
Possibly  it  was  due  more  to  the  growing  skepticism  or  to  the  inter- 
nal dissensions  which  so  racked  the  city  and  engrossed  the  chief  \ 
magistrates  that  they  were  more  intent  on  using  the  religious 
machinery  of  the  state  for  political  ends  than  on  establishing  new 
deities.  At  any  rate,  the  generals  of  this  period  vowed  in  battle  no 
temples  to  qualities  of  which  they  stood  in  special  need,  but  each 
took  some  one  of  the  greater  gods  as  his  patron — as  Sulla  took 

"Aust  (Pauly-Wissowa  III,  p.  716)  says  Bonus  Eventus  was  represented 
by  a  female  figure  on  coins  of  Septimius  Severus  (Cohen  III.  (>z,  ^7^,  and  Julia 
Domna  (ibid.  III.  9),  but  Cohen  calls  the  figure  Fides. 


32        DEIFICATION  OF  ABSTRACT  IDEAS  IN  ROMAN  LITERATURE 

Venus  Felix,  Caesar  Venus  Genetrix — or  else  built  shrines  to  deities 
already  existing. 

But  with  the  final  triumph  of  Caesar  and  the  establishment  of 
complete  authority  in  a  single  head,  and  with  the  consequent  adula- 
tion of  the  emperor  as  divine,  new  life  was  infused  into  abstract 
[deifications,  as  men  saw  in  them  a  special  means  of  flattery  to  the 
ruler.    Hence  not  only  were  the  old  deities  specialized  and  restricted 
to  the  performance  of  this  function  of  flattery  (as  has  been  shown 
above  in  the  treatment  of  the  individual  cases),  but  new  deifica- 
:ions  were  frequently  made  as  often  as  any  quality  of  the  emperor, 
V  ^      or  any  desirable  condition  pertaining  to  his  house  or  reign,  seemed 
OL     t>articularly  prominent.     So,  for  example,  as  early  as  44  b.  c,  the 
M      Senate  deified  dementia  and  made  this  virtue  the  cult-associate  of 
Caesar,  which,  as  Plutarch  saw  (Caesar  57),  was  merely  an  exag- 
gerated way  of  thanking  the  dictator  for  his  mercy. 

These  deified  abstracts,  which  sprang  up  in  the  Empire,  I  have 
collected  in  the  following  list.  For  many  of  them  we  lack  the  posi- 
tive evidence  of  temples  and  other  circumstances,  and  the  explicit 
statement  of  ancient  authorities,  such  as  we  find  for  those  of  the 
Republic,  so  that  they  are  included  by  probability.  On  account  of 
the  lack  in  most  cases  of  exact  chronological  data,  the  order  is 
alphabetical. 
^  Aequitas. — Aequitas  was  probably  worshiped  as  a  deity  privately, 

if  not  by  the  state,  during  the  republican  period,  for  the  bowl  found 
at  Vulci,  dating  between  350  and  200  b.  c,  inscribed  Aecetiai  poco- 
lom,  is  now  generally  accepted  as  a  votive  offering  to  her,  according 
to  Ritschl's  identification  (Opuscula  IV,  p.  283;  cf.  Bormann  ad 
CIL.  XI.  6708).  Arnobius  IV.  i,  2  names  her  with  Victoria  and 
Pax  as  a  typical,  deified  abstract;  but  Wissowa  (R.-K.,  p.  276  and 
n.  3),  impugning  this  testimony  without  reason,  denies  the  existence 
of  any  proof  that  this  divinity  ever  had  a  state-cult.  Absolute 
proof,  to  be  sure,  is  lacking,  but  enough  exists  to  make  it  very 
probable,  as  follows: 

I.  The  bilingual  altar-inscription  published  by  S.  Frankfurter 
(Festschrift  zu  Otto  Hirschfeld,  p.  440)  : 
T.  Pomponius  [ ]  Protomachus  leg.  Augg.  pr.  pr.  Aequitati 

Up^^us  €tv€K€]  rrjirSe  frporeifirideU  [d.vi6]rjK^v'^ 
Upurr6fjMxoi  ^wpov  EiSiKl-g  ffdevap^. 

This  was  set  up  outside  the  camp  in  an  inclosed  room,  and  was 
perhaps  a  tribunal  of  a  propraetor ian  legate  of  the  two  Augusti 


DEIFIED  ABSTRACTS  AS  INDIVIDUAL  CULTS  33 

(circa  216-47  a.  d.).  The  officer  had  it  erected  apparently  to 
impress  the  natives  with  the  purpose  of  the  court.  The  objection  to 
considering  Aequitas  a  regular  deity  from  the  fact  that  EiSiKirj  is 
an  entirely  free  subjective  translation,  and  that  therefore  aOevaprj 
was  conceived  of  as  necessary  (loc.  cit,  p.  442),  seems  to  me  to  have 
little  weight.  Some  word  was  necessary  to  fill  out  the  line  metric- 
ally, and  the  adjective  a-Ocvapvj  met  this  need  and  characterized 
the  power  of  the  deity,  and  hence  was  used.  Nor  would  Nemesis, 
which  Frankfurter  considers  the  likely  Greek  equivalent  for  a  well- 
known  Latin  deity  of  this  nature,  fit  the  case  here.  Nemesis 
stands  for  justice  in  the  sense  of  ruthless  punishment  for  crime, 
but  that  is  not  the  sense  of  Aequitas  at  all.  EvSiacit;  =  "Righteous 
dealing"  (see  Lidell  and  Scott)  or  "Fairness,"  is  a  much  closer 
translation.  Very  likely  most  of  the  cases  before  this  propraetor 
involved  financial  transactions,  of  which  especially  Aequitas  was  the 
protecting  deity. 

2.  Compare  the  herm  found  at  Mitrovizii  (II.  6015^.)  which 
was  apparently  used  as  a  weight  representing  a  woman  clad  in 
tunic  and  wearing  fillets,  holding  in  front  a  horn,  the  whole  inscribed 
Equetas  (= Aequitas). 

3.  The  idea  of  fair  dealing  is  corroborated  by  an  inscription 
from  Dougga  (Nouvelles  archives  des  missions  scientifiques  XI. 
[1903],  p.  48;  L'ann  epig.  1904,  no.  119)  ;  Mercurio  Aequitati  Aug. 
P.  Selicius.  The  position  on  the  stone  would  favor  the  understand- 
ing of  two  deities,  but  if  Aequitati  is  taken  as  cognomen  of  Mercury, 
as  Libertas  is  of  Jupiter,  yet  Aequitas  is  a  divine  concept  and  as 
such  is  fused  and  blended  with  Mercury. 

Finally,  Aequitas  is  represented  on  coins  as  early  as  Galba  after 
the  type  of  Moneta  with  the  balance  ( Engelhard,  p.  50,  and  Preller 
II,  p.  267).  These  facts,  taken  together  with  Arnobius'  explicit 
assertion,  throw  the  burden  of  proof  upon  those  denying  the  cult  of 
Aequitas. 
\  Aeternitas. — To  judge  from  the  figure  of  a  temple  with  legend 

Aeternitati  Augustae  on  coins  of  Octavius  and  Tiberius,  this  cult, 
like  many  others,  began  under  Augustus  in  the  colonies  of  Spain, 
e.g.,  in  Emerita  and  Tarraco  (Cohen  I,  October-August  585,  586, 
72y;  Tib.  78-80,  166).  It  is  restricted  to  the  Empire,  the  emperor, 
and  the  city.  The  idea  of  eternity  seems  to  have  been  closely  asso- 
ciated with  the  sun,  and  its  worship  to  have  come  from  that  of 
Baalim  in  Syria.     (See  article  Aeternus,  Pauly-Wissowa  I,  p.  696.) 


34      DEIFICATION  OF  ABSTRACT  IDEAS  IN  ROMAN  LITERATURE 

The  first  representations  of  the  goddess  (on  coins  of  Vespasian) 
have  the  flaming  sun  and  crescent  moon  as  her  symbols,  and  inscrip- 
tions from  Spain  illustrate  the  association  and  genesis :  Orelli  1925, 
Soli  invicto  et  Lunae  aeternae;  CIL.  II.  259,  Soli  Aeterno,  Lunae 
pro  aeternitate  imperii;  Orelli  1928,  Aeternitati  sacr(um),  Soli  et 
Lunae. 

The  first  occurrence  of  this  worship  in  Rome  is  found  in  the 
sacrifice  of  Aeternitas  imperii  after  the  suppression  of  the  conspiracy 
of  Piso  (66  A.  D.)  by  the  Arval  Brothers  {CIL.  VI.  2044.  i.  6). 
For  the  application  of  the  name  directly  to  emperors  in  the  late 
Empire  see  Cumont  Revue  de  Vhistoire  religieuse  I.   (1896),  pp. 

435  ff- 

X  Annona. — Although  strictly  a  deity  of  the  grain  supply,  a  con- 

crete idea,  Annona  in  a  wider  sense  was  a  goddess  of  plenty.  Out- 
side the  coins,  however,  there  are  but  few  signs  of  her  cult.  An 
altar  found  in  Rome  on  the  arx  has  a  bas-relief  representing  a 
female  figure  with  right  shoulder  and  arm  bare  and  head  decorated 
with  a  crescent  diadem;  with  her  right  hand  she  drops  ears  of 
grain  into  a  jar  standing  near;  with  her  left  she  lifts  an  overflowing 
cornucopia.  Beneath  is  the  legend  (CIL.  VI.  22)  :  Annonae  sanctae 
Aelius  Vitalio  mensor  perpetuus  dignissimi  corporis  pistorum 
siliginariorum  d(onum)  d(edit).  No  doubt  Annona  was  the  patron 
deity  of  this  corporation  of  millers.  CIL.  VIII.  7960  records  the 
dedication  of  two  statues  in  Numidia:  ....  Genium  patriae  n(os- 

trae)   et  Annonae  ^®  sacrae  urbis The  dedication  day  was 

celebrated  with  shows  and  special  largesses  to  the  people.  Of 
course,  the  deity  was  important  to  the  Numidians,  who  did  a  thriv- 
ing grain  trade  with  Rome. 

Another  inscription  (II.  4976^)  is  on  a  signet  ring  representing 
an  altar  marked  Ann.,  but  the  decoration — viz.,  rams'  and  goats* 
heads,  and  a  bird  with  a  garland — does  not  suggest  Annona.  It  is 
possible  that  the  letters  stand  for  the  owner's  name,  the  altar  aflFord- 
ing  a  convenient  field  for  the  engraving.  A  cippus  (VI.  8470)  was 
set  up  by  a  prefect  of  the  grain  supply  to  himself  and  family.  Two 
figures  flank  the  inscription,  one  representing  a  man  standing  in  a 
ship  with  a  grain-measure  near  by ;  the  other,  a  woman  dressed  in 
a  double  tunic,  identified  as  Annona  by  the  Corpus,  but  inasmuch 

"All  authorities  but  the  Corpus  capitalize  Annonae.  I  confess  to  a  feeling 
that  Wilmanns  (ad  loc.)  may  be  right  in  reading  and  indexing  it  as  a  common 
noun. 


DEIFIED  ABSTRACTS  AS  INDIVIDUAL  CULTS  :     35 

as  no  symbols  of  the  deity  are  described,  the  figure  may  be  his  wife. 
A  square  altar  in  Ostia  (XIV.  51 ;  see  photograph  in  Notizie  1881, 
PL  II)  has  the  reading  on  the  cornice  of  the  front  side,  according 
to  Lanciani,  |  |  ram  sac  ....  vAm  Avggeni  ....  sacomar;  accord- 
ing to  Dessau  in  CIL.  ad  loc,  |  |  ram  sac  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  onam,  etc. 
From  the  photographic  reproduction  most  of  the  text  is  doubtful 
before  Genio,  and  there  is  scarcely  a  trace  of  the  letter  o  in  onam 
and  not  much  more  of  the  n,  so  that  the  reading — onam — is  very 
doubtful,  or  too  uncertain  to  allow  us  to  cite  this  reading  as  more 
than  conjectural.  Statins  Silv.  i.  637  personifies  the  grain  supply 
thus: 

.  .  .  .  et  cum  tot  populos  beata  pascas 

hunc,  Annona,  diem  superba  nescis. 

Clementia. — In  44  b.  c.  the  Senate  decreed  a  temple  to  Caesar 
and  Qementia  (Appian  B.  C.  ii.  106),  set  up  statues  representing 
them  as  standing  hand  in  hand,  and  placed  Antonius  as  the  flamen 
dialis  over  the  priesthood  of  the  temple  (Dio.  Cass.  xliv.  6.  4),  thus 
emphasizing  its  importance.  This  servile  personification  was  the 
starting-point  of  the  almost  numberless  deifications  that  soon  fol- 
lowed. Again  in  28  a.  d.  an  altar  was  erected  in  honor  of  Clementia 
(Tac.  Ann.  iv.  74),  and  in  66  the  Arvals  record  a  sacrifice  to  her, 
both  strangely  enough  in  the  reigns  of  vindictive  tyrants. 

\  DisciPLiNA. — This  was  a  cult  restricted  to  the  army,  as  the 
few  extant  inscriptions  designate  it  as  Disciplina  militaris  (VIII. 
9832,  10657),  or  it  came  from  camps  (VII.  896;  VIII.  18058).  In 
all  probability,  Disciplina  was  deified  by  Hadrian  in  connection  with 
his  military  reforms  (Domaszewski  Westd.  Zeits.  1895,  pp.  44  f.). 
N  Fecunditas. — In  62,  a.  d.  the  Senate  voted  a  temple  to  Fecundi- 
tas  in  connection  with  the  birth  of  a  daughter  to  Poppaea  (Tac. 
Ann,  XV.  23).  Afterward  this  made-to-order  goddess  was  figured 
on  coins,  but  there  is  no  evidence  that  she  was  worshiped  by  the 
people. 

V  Indulgentia. — Little  distinction  can  be  seen  between  this  deity 
and  Clementia,  except  that  the  latter  has  to  do  with  leniency  toward 
error,  the  former  to  the  granting  of  favors.  Our  first  trustworthy 
evidence  of  Indulgentia's  place  in  state-cults  dates  from  210  a.  d., 
when  a  praefectus  coloniarum  at  Cirta,  Africa,  erected  a  small 
shrine  with  a  bronze  statue  of  Indulgentia  domini  nostri  (VIII. 
7095-98).  Also  a  statue  of  Indulgentia  novi  saeculi  Imp.  Caes.  M. 
Antoni  Gordiani   (VIII.  20487,  238-44  A.  d.)   may  have  stood  at 


36        DEIFICATION  OF  ABSTRACT  IDEAS  IN  ROMAN  LITERATURE 

Castellum  Thib.  (?).  On  coins,  however,  her  image  was  stamped 
as  early  as  Hadrian's  reign.  The  only  sign  of  a  cult  is  found  in 
the  plausible  identification  of  this  goddess  by  Wissowa  R.-K.,  p. 
279,  with  Evepyco-ta,  to  whom  Dio  Cassius  Ixxi.  34.  3  says  Marcus 
Aurelius  built  a  temple  on  the  Capitoline,  using  an  entirely  new 
name.  Juvenal  vii.  20,  Indulgentia  ducis,  and  Statins  Silv.  ii.  125 
are  probably  allusions  to  the  cult. 
\  lusTiTiA. — It  has  been  generally  agreed  that  the  cult  of  lustitia 
began  about  the  time  of  Tiberius  (Preller  II,  p.  266;  Wissowa,  p. 
276),  but  a  definite  terminus  post  quem  has  not  been  attempted. 
From  Ovid  (Epist.)  ex  Ponto  iii.  6.  23-26,  we  can  with  great 
probability  fix  the  date  within  comparatively  narrow  limits.  Ovid 
says: 

Crede  mihi,  miseris  caelestia  numina  parcunt 

nee  semper  laesos  et  sine  fine  premunt 
principe  nee  nostro  deus  est  moderatior  ullus. 

lustitia  vires  temperat  ille  suas. 
Nuper  earn  Caesar  faeto  de  marmore  templo, 
iampridem  posuit  mentis  in  aede  suae. 

This  seems  to  indicate  that  Augustus  built  a  temple  and  estab- 
lished the  cult;  for,  while  the  phrase  facto  de  marmore  templo  is 
ambiguous  in  meaning,  and  may  possibly  refer  to  a  temple  of  some 
deity  other  than  lustitia,  and  may  be  a  pure  locative,  yet  it  more 
probably  refers  to  a  temple  of  lustitia  and  is  ablative  absolute  with 
locative  association.  For,  first,  the  phrase  is  too  full  and  complete 
for  the  simple  meaning  "in  a  marble  temple,"  and,  secondly,  the 
,  whole  feeling  of  the  passage  shows  that  the  temple  of  lustitia  is 
meant.  Ovid  intended  to  say  that  Caesar  has  emphasized  the  divin- 
ity of  justice  by  building  an  external  temple  for  her  abode,  but  that 
long  before  he  had  enshrined  her  in  the  sanctuary  of  his  mind. 
Much  of  the  force  of  the  contrast  would  be  lost  by  the  interpreta- 
tion, "he  set  up  a  statue  of  Justice  in  some  other  (unknown) 
temple."  The  poet  was  thinking  of  the  founding  of  the  cult  in  the 
emperor's  mind  as  prior  to  its  establishment  in  a  public  material 
temple. 

Now,  the  poet  published  his  first  three  books  of  letters  in  the 
latter  part  of  13  a.  d.  The  letter  with  which  we  are  concerned  was 
one  of  the  later  ones  written  to  some  influential  Roman  from  whom 
he  had  failed  to  get  permission  to  use  his  name  in  a  previous  letter. 
It,  therefore,  was  written  not  long  before  the  publication  of  this 


DEIFIED  ABSTRACTS  AS  INDIVIDUAL  CULTS  37 

collection  of  letters  together.  (See  Schanz  Romische  Litteraturge- 
schichte  11.  i,  p.  225  ;  Teuffel-Schwabe  I,  p.  504.)  We  can  therefore 
infer  from  nuper,  1.  25,  that  the  temple  of  lustitia  was  built  by 
Augustus  in  the  early  part  of  13  A.  d.  This  fits  well  with  the  notice 
in  the  Fasti  Capitolini  for  January  8:  Signum  lustitiae  Angus  [tae 
.  .  .  .  dedicatum  Planco  (?)  et  Silio  cos.]  (13  a.  d.),  whose  lost 
part  would  doubtless  mention  the  temple.  At  all  events  it  is  certain 
that  Augustus  personally  gave  prestige  to  the  worship  of  this  god- 
dess as  a  state-cult,  or  else  Ovid's  lines  lose  their  point. 

Only  a  few  inscriptions  to  lustitia  are  extant,  and  the  cult  is 
not  reflected  in  literature,  though  justice  personified  is  frequent, 
especially  in  poetry.  But  here  she  is  the  Greek  mythical  character, 
identified  most  commonly  with  Erigone  or  Astraea,  who  left  the 
earth  ultima  caelestium  (Ovid  Fasti  i.  249;  Verg.  Geor.  ii.  474) 
with  Pudicitia,  her  sister ;  but  she  is  also  the  same  as  Themis  ( Hor. 
Carm.  ii.  17.  16),  or  Dike,  in  character. 

Quite  a  different  character  is  given  her  as  equivalent  to  Nemesis 
or  Adrasteia,  which  some  bilingual  inscriptions  show  (e.  g.,  X. 
3812;  see  Nemesis  below).  Ammianus  Marcellinus  (xiv.  11.  25), 
however,  says  the  "theologi  veteres"  considered  her  the  mother  of 
Nemesis.  Macrobius  (Sat.  i.  21,  24),  as  if  explaining  a  statue, 
gives  an  almost  inexplicable  application  to  the  name,  viz.:  Virgo 
autem  quae  manu  aristam  refert,  quid  aliud  quam  Svm/us  17X1010/ 
quae  fructibus  curat?  et  ideo  lustitia  creditur,  quae  sola  facit  nas- 
centes  fructus  ad  usus  hominum  pervenire.  Aulus  Gellius  (xiv.  4) 
describes  her  features  as  depicted  according  to  Chrysippus,  viz.:  a 
pictoribus  rhetoribusque  antiquioribus  ad  hunc  f erme  modum ;  forma 
atque  filo  virginali  aspectu,  vementi  et  formidabili,  luminibus  ocu- 
lorum  acribus,  neque  humilis  neque  atrocis  sed  reverendae  cuiusdam 
tristitiae  dignitate. 

Pax. — An  altar  of  Pax  Augusta  was  decreed  by  the  Senate  on 
the  return  of  Augustus  from  Spain,  July  4,  13  b.  c,  and  dedicated 
January  30,  9  b.  c.  Both  days  were  kept  in  the  calendars  as  feriae 
publicae.  On  still  another  day,  March  30,  10  a.  d.,  Augustus  set  up 
a  statue  to  her,  with  others  to  Janus,  Salus,  and  Concordia  (Dio 
Cass.  liv.  35.  2).  But  it  is  likely  that  she  was  worshiped  before  this 
time,  for  a  coin  of  44  b.  c.  (Babelon  II.  23)  shows  her  face,  and  we 
may  therefore  ascribe  her  to  Caesar. 

Of  course  this  cult  had  greatest  eclat  after  wars;  hence  in  the 
Empire  her  likeness  is  especially  frequent  on  coins  of  Galba,  Ves- 


38        DEIFICATION  OF  ABSTRACT  IDEAS  IN  ROMAN  LITERATURE 

pasian,  and  others.  Cf.  CIL.  11.  3732:  [Caesari]  T.  Imp.  Ves- 
pasiano  Aug.  Vespasiani  f(ilio)  conser[v2i]tori  Pads  Aug(ustae). 
It  is  not  necessary  to  refer  at  length  to  the  great  temple  built  by 
Vespasian  and  stored  with  the  richest  works  of  Greek  art,  described 
by  Pliny  the  Elder  (N.H.  xii.  94;  xxxiv.  84;  xxxv.  74).  Its 
destruction  by  fire  in  192  A.  d.  under  Commodus  caused  a  great 
popular  tumult. 

Since  the  temple  of  Janus  was  closed  in  times  of  peace,  this 
deity  was  often  coupled  with  him;  e.  g.,  Ovid  Fasti  i.  121 : 

cum  libuit  (sc.  lano)   Pacem  placidis  emittere  tectis 
libera  perpetuas  ambulat  ilia  vias. 

(Cf.  Hor.  Epist.  ii.  i.  255,  custodem  pacis  ....  lanum;  and  Stat. 
Silv.  iv.  I.  13  fif.)  Hence,  in  66  a.  d.,  the  Arval  Brothers  include  her 
in  their  prayers  at  the  closing  of  the  temple  of  Janus  (CIL.  VL 
2044.  i.  12;  cf.  VI.  32347a).  She  is  also  associated  with  Mars 
(Brambach  CIRh.  484;  Wilmanns  Exempla  150;  aram  dicavit  sos- 
piti  Concordiae  Granno  Camenis  Martis  et  Pacis  Lari  qui[n  e]t 
deorum  stirpe  genito  Caesari).  But  only  once  besides  this  does  she 
occur  in  military  inscriptions  (Brambach  55  =  Dessau  3094). 

Her  symbol  was  the  well-known  olive-branch,  and  besides  this 
she  is  adorned  often  with  wheat-ears  and  poppies,  since  she  brought 
prosperity  to  agriculture.  (See  Tibullus  i.  10.  67.)  As  is  the  case 
with  one  or  two  other  qualities,  a  presiding  spirit  or  genius  is 
ascribed  to  her  in  CIL.  VIII.  17832:  Genio  Pacis.  Compare  the 
coin  in  Cohen  V,  no.  295,  where  under  the  superscription  Pacis 
Event,  a  genius  bears  wheat-ears  and  poppy  in  the  same  way  that 
Pax  is  shown  (ibid.,  no.  296). 
\  Providentia. — Probably  Augustus  also  established  the  cult  of 
Providentia  Augusta,  to  whom  an  altar  is  mentioned  as  erected  in 
the  acts  of  the  Arvals  (which  show  that  this  goddess  was  worshiped 
\  publicly  in  the  reigns  of  Tiberius,  Caligula,  Claudius,  Nero,  Nerva, 
Severus,  and  Commodus) .  Originally  the  reference  was  to  the  fore- 
sight of  the  emperor,  but  in  the  later  period  it  shifted  to  the  provi- 
dgpce  of  the  gods  over  the  ruler;  e.g.,  Providentiam  deorum  (VI. 
I  2099;  III.  18).  The  extant  inscriptions  were  nearly  all  set  up  either 
by  resolution  of  the  Senate  (X.  6310),  by  the  Arval  Brothers,  or  by 
a  proconsul  (III.  12036)  or  other  officials  (e.g.,  sevir  Augustalis, 
XL  4170).  We  are  warranted  from  this  fact,  as  well  as  from  the 
Ismail  number  of  inscriptions,  in  assuming  this  cult  to  be  an  indirect 


DEIFIED  ABSTRACTS  AS  INDIVIDUAL  CULTS  39 

official  means  of  flattering  the  emperor,  and  without  popular 
influence.  In  literature  Apuleius  Met.  vi.  15,  nee  Providentiae 
bonae  graves  oculos  anima  latuit  aerumna,  possibly  has  the  deity  in 
mitid. 

PuDiciTiA, — Although  the  traditional  story  of  a  sanctuary  of 
Pudicitia  patricia  in  the  Forum  Boarium  (Liv.  x.  23.  3)  has  been 
shown  to  be  legendary  (Wissowa  Anal.  Rom.  topog.,  pp.  5ff. ; 
R.'K.,  pp.  207  and  2yy),  and  the  deity  identified  with  the  veiled 
statue  in  the  temple  of  Fortuna  Virgo,  and  these  two  names  inter- 
changed for  the  same  cult,  yet  the  chapel  of  Pudicitia  plebeia  in  the 
Vicus  Longus  must  have  gone  back  far  into  antiquity.  We  cannot 
determine  whether  this  cult  became  official  in  the  republican  period 
or  not,  but  in  the  Empire  it  was  brought  into  close  relation  with  the 
worship  of  the  ruling  house,  since  the  phrase  ara  Pudicitiae  is  found 
on  coins  of  the  period  of  Trajan,  and  Pudicitia  Aug.  is  on  later 
mintage  (Cohen  op.  cit..  Index:  cf.  CIL.  VIII.  993).  However, 
before  this  time  Valerius  Maximus  (vi.  praef.  i)  had  connected  the 
cult  with  Livia  as  follows:  tu  Palatii  columen  augustos  Penates 
sanctissimumque  luliae  genialem  torum  adsidua  celebras,  tuo  prae- 
sidio  puerilis  aetatis  insignia  munita  sunt,  tui  numinis  respectu 
sincerus  iuventae  flos  permanet,  te  custode  matronalis  stola  cense- 
tur:  ades  igitur  et  recognosce  quae  fieri  ipsa  voluisti.  Propertius 
too  (ii.  6.  25), 

templa  Pudicitiae  quid  opus  statuisse  puellis 
si  cuivis  nuptae  quidlibet  esse  licet. 

may  possibly  be  referring  to  real  temples,  and  not  only  to  the  sacel- 
lum  in  the  Vicus  Longus;  but  of  this  we  cannot  be  sure,  for  like 
others  he  may  have  called  the  temple  of  Fortuna  Virgo  in  the  Forum 
Boarium  (Varro  Nonius  189)  by  the  name  of  Pudicitia.^^ 

The  original  cult  admitted  only  matronae  univiriae  as  devotees 
(Liv.  loc.  cit),  which  may  have  been  the  regulation  enforced 
throughout.  On  the  other  hand,  Valerius  Maximus  (loc.  cit.) 
treats  it  very  broadly  as  including  both  sexes  and  all  ages.  In 
mythical  lore  Pudicitia  was  commonly  associated  with  lustitia  as 
the  last  of  the  virtues  to  leave  the  earth  after  the  golden  age  of 
Saturn  (Juvenal  vi.  i  ff. ;  Claudian.  i.  294).    Inscriptions  are  rare. 

**  Rothstein's  suggestion  (ad  loc),  that  Propertius'  words  alluded  to  a 
restoration  of  these  two  cults,  is  plausible,  but  the  whole  matter  is  obscure. 


40        DEIFICATION  OF  ABSTRACT  IDEAS  IN  ROMAN  LITERATURE 

In  one  (III.  141 56)  she  is  joined  with  Pietas,  and  in  others  (X. 
6351;  VI.  1341)  the  chastity  of  married  women  is  commemorated. 

\  Securitas. — The  earliest  notice  of  this  deity  is  in  the  Acta 
ArvaHum  {CIL.  VI.  2051,  1.  30),  60  A.  d.,  but  the  phrase  Securitas 
Augusti  appears  on  coins  of  Nero.  She  was  officially  identified 
with  the  worship  of  the  imperial  house ;  e.  g.,  XIV.  2899,  Securitati 
Aug.  sacrum,  decuriones  populusque  coloniae  Praenestinae.  In  the 
reign  of  Trajan  a  public  vow  was  offered  to  her  (Tac.  Agr.  3),  and 
in  Caracalla's  time  a  bronze  statue  of  Securitas  saeculi  was  set  up 
in  Cirta,  Africa  (VIII.  7095-98).  This  is  the  only  public  evidence 
of  her  worship  as  a  state-cult. 

Apparently  there  was  a  private  worship  of  her  as  the  protectress 
of  the  dead.  For  not  only  do  we  meet  with  the  phrases  dis  securita- 
tis  (VI.  2268),  dibus  (=dis)  securis,  and  securitati  suae  (=pro 
securitate  sua)  (XIII.  281 1)  in  place  of  the  usual  dis  manibus,  but 
also  inscriptions  such  as  Securitati  sacr(um)  Valerius  ....  fecit 
(VI.  28047),  Securitati  perpetuae  in  memoriam  (VI.  25607), 
Securitati  sacrum  lulia  Phoebe  sibi  ....  (VI.  9016),  show  that 
Securitas  was  vaguely  deified  and  took  the  place  of  the  di  manes. 
In  this  way  she  is  often  joined  with  Memoria  (see  below)  ;  e.g., 
VI.  i8378;cf.  III.  7436- 

'^  TuTELA. — Definite  data  of  the  existence  of  Tutela  among  the 
state-cults  are  lacking,  but  numerous  inscriptions  with  and  without 
the  cognomen  Augusta  on  altars  from  all  parts  of  the  Empire  and 
on  coins  as  early  as  Vitellius  make  her  position  almost  certain.  She 
affords  a  good  illustration  of  the  elevation  of  a  pure  appellative  to 
a  deification ;  for  the  various  steps  of  the  process  are  seen  in  numer- 
ous inscriptions.     The  starting-point  is  found  in  such  phrases  as 

tutela  lunonis,  Neptuni,  Minervae  on  the  menologia  rus- 

tica,  showing  under  whose  watch-care  each  month  is.  (Cf.  also 
tutela  Minervae  of  a  ship,  Ovid  Trist.  i.  10.  i ;  tutela  lovis,  CIL. 
V.  4243  and  XII.  1837,  has  probably  this  sense  rather  than  "J^^pi- 
ter's  protecting  deity.")  Then,  when  the  exact  deity  who  should 
be  the  protector  was  unknown,  a  worshiper  would  erect  an  altar  dec 
tutelae  or  deo  in  cuius  tutela  domus  est  (XIII.  246;  II.  4092;  VI. 
573).  From  this  it  was  an  easy  step  to  the  next  stage  in  which  the 
protecting  spirit  of  a  special  place  was  called  "Protection,"  especially 
since  tutela  was  sometimes  used  concretely  ("protector"  or  "guar- 
dian") ;  e.g.,  Ovid  Met.  viii.  711,  prorae  tutela  Melanthus;  Hor. 
Carm.  iv.  14.  43,  O  tutela  praesens  Italiae  (i.  e.,  Augustus)  ;  Hor. 


^SdkiLom'^ 


DEIFIED  ABSTRACTS   AS   INDIVIDUAL   CULTS  41 

Epist.  i.  I.  103,  rerum  tutela  mearum  Cum  sis,  with  which  compare 
curator  a  praetore  datus  used  a  Hne  before  with  similar  meaning. 

This  spirit,  "Protection"  or  "Protectress,"  had  her  counterpart       j 
in  the  Genius,  who  developed  from  a  spirit  of  the  power  of  genera-     jlk 
tion  attending  a  man  to  one  of  protection  guarding  both  men  and 
places.     Accordingly,    Tutela   and   Genius   are    frequently   named 
together  to  give  a  place  full  protection  (III.  4445;  VI.  216)  and 
Tutela  was  introduced  among  the  household  deities  of  every  family 
(Hieron.  Comm.  in  S.  Isaiam  672:  ipsaque  Roma  orbis  domina  in 
singulis   insulis   domibusque   Tutelae   simulacrum   cereis    venerans 
ac  lucernans  quam  ad  tuitionem  aedium  isto  appellant  ut  tam  intran- 
tes  quam  exeuntes  domos  suas  inoliti  semper  commoneantur  erroris ; 
cf.  CIL.  II.  4082,  Laribus  et  [Tu]telae,  Genio.  .  .  .  ).     But  the  1^ 
conception  of  Tutela  was  more  far-reaching  than  that  of  Genius;  ff^ 
for  she  was  not  confined  always  to  a  particular  place  or  person^  \ 
but  was  a  broader  abstraction,  like  Fortuna  and  Victoria,  and  as  j 
such  had  a  temple  at  Bordeaux,  of  whose  portico  remains  are  still 
visible  (XIII.  583),  and  at  Perigueux  (XIII.  939),  sacerdos  Aren- 
sia  qui   templum   deae  Tutelae  et  thermas   public  (as)    utraq(ue) 
ol[im]  vestustate  collabsa  sua  pecunia  restituit) 

The  above  conception  of  the  origin  of  this  goddess,  it  will  be 
seen,  differs  from  that  of  Wissowa  (R.-K,,  p.  156),  who  considers 
Tutela  an  offshoot  of  Genius,  the  deus  in  cuius  tutela  hie  locus  est.  f 
But  the  complete  phrase  in  the  reference  this  scholar  cites,  viz. 
(Henzen  Acta  Arvalium,  p.  146),  sive  deo  sive  deae  in  cuius  tutela 
hie  lucus  locusve  est,  oves  II,  compared  with  the  common  phrase, 
sive  deo  sive  deae  oves  II  (Henzen  op.  cit.,  p.  144),  shows  that  the 
Arvals  were  not  thinking  expressly  of  the  Genius  loci,  but  of  some 
one  of  the  other  gods  or  goddesses,  known  or  unknown,  whose 
function  it  was  to  protect  that  place.  If  they  had  conceived  of  the 
Genius  alone,  there  would  have  been  no  occasion  for  using  the 
ambiguous  formula,  where  both  a  male  and  a  female  deity  were 
included.  The  phrase  sive  deo  sive  deae  is  regularly  used  with 
wider  reference  than  to  the  special  Genius  (cf.  Aul.  Gell.  ii.  28; 
Macr.  iii.  9.  7;  Arnob.  iii.  8,  and  other  citations  in  Wissowa  R.-K., 
p.  33,  n.  2),  and  its  use  in  the  acts  of  the  Arvals  is  simply  another 
example.  It  is  quite  true,  as  Henzen  (ibid.)  says,  that  the  sive  deus 
sive  dea,  etc.,  is  practically  equivalent  in  function  to  a  spirit 
protecting  a  place  (p.  146,  "Idem  fere  est  qui  Genius  luci  vel  loci"), 
but  that  it  is  not  exactly  the  same  is  proved  by  the  addition  of  the 


42        DEIFICATION  OF  ABSTRACT  IDEAS  IN  ROMAN  LITERATURE 

feminine  dea.  The  phrases  deo  tutelae  Genio  and  Genio  tutelae  (II. 
3377,  4092,  2991)  show  nothing  more  than  that  the  Genius  was  a 
deity  of  protection.  But  so  also  was  Fortuna,  who  is  so  often 
coupled  with  Tutela  (VI.  177,  179,  216)  and  is  called  dea  Fortuna 
tutatrix  huius  loci  in  one  case  (XII.  4183),  and  has  the  cognomen 
;  Tutela  (VI.  178;  cf.  Carter  De  deor.  Rom.  cogn.,  p.  47).  In  fact, 
:  all  the  gods  were  thought  of  as  protectors  of  certain  places ;  e.  g., 
;  aedem  aramque  I.  O.  M.  et  Silvano  sancto  ceterisque  diis  quorum  in 
tutela  aedificium  est;  VI.  343,  Hercules  tutator;  XL  1549,  luppiter 
tutator;  X.  3799,  Hercules  tutor;  XIV.  25,  luppiter  tutor  (cf. 
Carter  loc.  cit.).  Any  deity  whose  figure  was  on  the  stern  of  a 
vessel  was  called  its  tutela  (Ovid  Trist.  i.  10.  i;  Petr.  105,  108). 
Much  easier,  therefore,  is  it  to  derive  the  deity  Tutela  from  this 
general  conception  of  protection  than  from  any  one  god.  Neither  is 
she  to  be  looked  upon  as  a  female  Genius  or  as  about  equivalent  to 
a  Juno,  since  both  men  and  women  pay  vows  to  her  (cf.  VI.  31054, 
Tutele  sancte  Aurelius  Urbanus  ex  voto;  XIII.  411,  Tutelae  sanc- 
tiss(imae)  Chrysan[thus]  ;  XIII.  159;  VI.  30984). 

Among  the  many  inscriptions  of  this  cult  we  may  single  out  a 
few  particularly  interesting  ones.  With  Hercules,  Fides,  and  For- 
tuna she  is  a  patron  deity  of  a  statio  in  Rome  (Mitth.  des  Arch. 
Inst.  1904,  p.  52),  and  soldiers  also  honored  her  {L'ann.  epig.  1903, 
no.  369,  Tutelae  loci  milites  legionis  eiusdem  aedem  ....  aere 
collato).  A  ring  found  near  Lyons  bore  a  gem  inscribed:  Veneri 
et  Tutelae  votum  (Boissier  Inscr.  antiq.  de  Lyon,  p.  11).^^  In 
Gaul  Tutela  apparently  was  a  favorite  cult ;  cf .  CIL.  XIIL  57,  449, 
328,  besides  the  above-named  inscriptions.  Cognomina  formed 
from  city-names  were  attached  to  her  name ;  e.  g.,  Tutela  Aug. 
Ussubia  (XIIL  919),  Tutela  Tiriensis  (Eph.  Epig.  VIII.  Iiia), 
Tutela  Tarracon(ensis)  (II.  4091). 

A  close  connection  of  Tutela  Aug.  with  the  worship  of  the 
emperor  may  possibly  be  seen  in  CIL.  11.  4056,  Tutelae  Aug.  sacrum 
C.  Terentius  Onesimus  ob  honorem  seviratus  sui  et  in  honorem  C. 
Terenti  Ursi  fili.     It  is  surprising  that  a  cult  so  well  attested  by 

'^  The  fact  that  Venus  Anadyomene  is  possibly  alluded  to  by  the  representation 
of  a  dolphin  on  a  necklace  discovered  among  the  same  relics  with  the  ring  is 
merely  a  coincidence  and  is  no  sign  that  Tutela  was  peculiarly  a  maritime  deity. 
No  other  evidence  is  at  hand.  Doubtless,  however,  she  was  invoked  by  sailors 
as  by  other  people. 


\ 


DEIFIED  ABSTRACTS  AS  INDIVIDUAL  CULTS  43 

inscriptions  should  find  such  Httle  recognition  in  literature.  Petro- 
nius  57,  ita  Tutelam  huius  loci  habeam  propitiam,  is  our  only 
reference. 

n.     ABSTRACTS  POPULARLY  BUT  NOT  OFFICIALLY  WORSHIPED 

Under  this  heading  are  included  such  unofficial  deifications  as 
seem  to  have  had  real  worship,  more  or  less  localized;.  The  data, 
however,  are  in  most  cases  very  fragmentary — mere  traces  which  it 
is  difficult  to  view  in  their  true  bearings. 

CopiA. — Wissowa  R.-K.,  p.  2y6,  has  well  pointed  out  the  lack 
of  convincing  proof  that  the  worship  of  Copia  was  ever  a  state- 
cult.  The  evidence  adduced  by  Peter  in  Roscher  from  the 
colonies  of  Copia  (191  b.  c.)  at  Thurii  (Strabo  spells  it  Copiae) 
and  Lugdunum  43  b.  c.  is  without  much  weight ;  for  these  colonies 
were  often  named  from  pure  qualities  never  deified ;  e.  g.,  Claritas 
lulia  Augusta,  Placentia.  On  the  other  hand,  we  cannot  slight,  as 
Wissowa  does,  the  inscription  found  at  Avignon:  Sex.  Veratius 
Priscae  l(ibertus)  Pothus  Copiae  v.  s.  1.  m.  (XII.  1023)  ;  nor 
ascribe  it  to  an  unknown  Gallic  deity.  The  name  of  the  donor  is  not 
Gallic,  and  Copia,  it  seems  to  me,  is  a  condition  so  desired  and  dear 
to  the  average  person's  heart  that  it  was  likely  to  be  deified  very 
early,  and  it  is  probable  that  she  had  her  devotees,  as  Fortuna  and 
Bonus  Eventus  had.  So  Plautus  Pseud,  y^f^,  Di  immortales!  non 
Charinus  mihi  hicquidem  sed  Copiast,  had  very  likely  a  real  god- 
dess in  mind.' 

MuNDiTiES. — On  the  Capitoline  basis  dating  from  136  a.  d.  in 
the  reign  of  Trajan  {CIL.  VP,  p.  480),  which  gives  a  list  of  the 
vici  with  their  respective  magistri,  occurs  the  name  Vico  Mundiciei 
under  Regio  XIII,  third  column,  line  41.  Now,  inasmuch  as  very 
many  of  these  vici  (almost  half  of  them  at  least)  are  named  from 
some  prominent  topographical  feature,  such  as  a  public  building, 
city-gate,  temple,  altar,  shrine,  or  statue,  and  perhaps  a  private 
house — e.  g..  Piscinae  Publicae,  Portae  Naeviae,  Columnae  Ligneae, 
Honor  (is)  et  Virtut(is),  Trium  Ararum,  Statuae  Valerianae — it  is 
probable  that  Mundiciei  also  refers  to  some  religious  monument, 
probably  a  shrine,  since  many  deities  with  recognized  cults  are 
mentioned,  as  Fortuna  Obsequens,  F.  Respiciens,  F.  Huiusque 
Diei,  Venus,  Apollo,  Diana,  and  others.  This  goddess,  "Cleanli- 
ness," may  well  have  been  a  private  cult  or  even  encouraged  by  the 
state  as   a   means   of   keeping  the  city   in   a   sanitary   condition. 


44        DEIFICATION  OF  ABSTRACT  IDEAS  IN  ROMAN  LITERATURE 

Perhaps  the  thirteenth  region,  which  took  in  the  Aventine  and  lay 
near  the  river,  had  special  need  to  worship  this  idea,  because  it 
contained  the  grain-  and  oil-warehouses.^^  In  view  of  this  probable 
cult,  it  may  be  that,  when  Plautus  Cas.  i.  225  says  magis  nimio 
munditiis  Munditiam  antideo,  he  had  a  recognized  goddess  in  mind. 
The  compiler  of  the  spurious  book  of  the  fifteenth  century  on  the 
city  regions  under  the  name  P.  Victor  (see  Teuffel-Schwabe,  §432. 
7),  copying  this  stone,  recorded  Mundities  as  a  deity  whose 
shrine  was  still  to  be  seen  (Hartung  Die  Religion  der  Romer  II. 
264). 
■  I  Natio. — This  was  not  a  Roman  deity  nor  a  general  abstraction, 
'  but  a  special  deity  of  child-birth,  honored  in  Ardea.  Cic.  De  nat. 
deor.  iii.  47 :  Quodsi  tales  dii  sunt,  ut  rebus  humanis  intersint,  Natio 
quoque  dea  putanda  est:  cui  cum  fana  circuimus  in  agro  Ardeati 
rem  divinam  f acere  solemus ;  quae,  quia  partus  matronarum  tueatur, 
a  nascentibus  Natio  nominata  est. 

Nemesis. — This  goddess  of  retribution  is  a  late  arrival  among 
Roman  deities.  Her  name  was  brought  over  from  the  Greek  with- 
out translation,  and  doubtless  her  cult  was  one  of  the  sacra  pere- 
grina  (Ausonius  xviii.  17.  66;  cf.  x.  379).  We  have  no  evidence  of 
a  temple  in  Rome,  but  in  the  late  Empire  at  least  it  is  probable  that 
she  was  worshiped  in  the  city,  especially  by  gladiators,  of  whom  she 
was  a  patron  deity.  (Cf.  A.  von  Premerstein  in  Philologus  LIIL 
[1894],  pp.  407 if.)  Pliny  the  Elder  (N.H.  xxviii.  22  and  xi.  251) 
mentions  a  statue  standing  on  the  Capitoline,  which  in  all  probability 
was  merely  decorative. 

Outside  Italy  she  had  temples  at  Aquincum  in  Pannonia  and 
Apuli  in  Dacia  (III.  10439;  HI-  14474) »  and  the  cult  was  highly 
regarded  by  soldiers  located  in  this  vicinity  and  in  western  Thrace, 
where  she  was  closely  associated  with  Diana  and  blended  with  her 
as  a  cognomen  (III.  14076,  10440).  In  one  case  she  was  repre- 
sented in  the  form  and  clothing  of  Diana.  With  other  deities  also  she 
was  identified;  e.g.,  Juno  (Apul.  Met.  xi.  5;  CIL.  III.  11 121), 
Nortia  (Mart.  Capella  i.  88),  Fortuna  (CIL.  III.  1125) ;  cf.  Julius 
Capitolinus  in  Scriptores  Augusti  xxi.  8.  6:  Nemesis,  id  est  vis 
quaedam  Fortunae.  Macrobius  (i.  22.  i)  calls  her  solis  potestas. 
Ammianus  (xiv.  11.  25)  says  the  older  theologians  conceived  her  to 
be  the  daughter  of  lustitia.     Cf.  CIL.  X.  3812,  lustitiae  Nemesi. 

"That  Mundicies  =  Mundities  is  agreed.  See  Stolz  und  Schmalz  Lateinische 
Grammatik  (ed.  1900),  p.  24;  Lindsay  Latin  Language,  p.  88. 


DEIFIED  ABSTRACTS  AS  INDIVIDUAL  CULTS  45 

There  were  a  guild  of  priests  called  amici  Nemesiaci  {CIL.  II. 
5191)  and  possibly  flamens  in  Spain  (11.  2195).  For  an  exhaustive 
discussion  of  the  phases  of  this  cult  see  von  Premerstein  loc.  cit. ; 
Rosbach  in  Roscher  III,  pp.  138,  139. 

QuiES. — To  judge  from  Livy  iv,  41.  8,  the  common  people  of 
Latium  worshiped  Quies  as  early  as  423  b.  c,  when  there  was  a 
shrine  on  the  via  Labicana;  but  Augustine  {De  civ.  dei  iv.  16) 
declares  that  the  cult  was  never  adopted  officially:  Quietem  vero 
appellantes,  quae  faceret  quietum,  cum  aedem  haberet  extra  portam 
Collinam,  publice  illam  suscipere  noluerunt.  The  supposition  of 
Wissowa  that  Augustine  was  referring  to  Livy's  passage,  and  so 
had  the  same  shrine  in  mind,  but  carelessly  made  a  mistake  in  the 
location,  perhaps  from  memory,  is  supported  by  the  fact  that 
Varro  is  probably  not  Augustine's  source  for  this  statement,  since 
none  of  the  other  Christian  Fathers,  depending  upon  Varro,  men- 
tion Quies  in  their  lists.  The  location  of  the  chapel  on  the  via 
Labicana  would  suggest  that  the  allusion  was  to  rest  from  journey- 
ing, without,  however,  any  connotation  of  quiet.  But  Ammianus 
.  (xix.  II.  6),  ....  ut  diuturno  otio  involuti  et  Quietem  colentes 
tamquam  salutarem  tributariorum  onera  subirent  et  nomen,  uses 
the  term  as  almost  synonymous  with  Pax  and  this  may  be  the  mean- 
ing above.  Statins  (Theb.  x.  89;  Silv.  i.  6.  91)  fancies  Quies  as 
"Repose,"  in  the  company  of  "Sleep"  and  "Laziness."  On  sepul- 
chral inscriptions  Quies  is  joined  with  Securitas ;  e.  g.,  VI.  16061 : 
Quieti  et  Securitati  Compses ;  VI.  22337 :  Quieti  et  Securitati  Fadius 

....  Fadia    max[ima] In    VI.    25565,    with    Fortuna, 

Spes,  Pietas,  and  Victoria,  Quies  is  joined  as  a  sepulchral  deity. 

Valentia. — This  goddess  of  strength  and  vigor  was  honored  at 
Ocriculum  in  Umbria  (Tertullian  ApoL  24).  Mommsen  (Eph. 
Epig.  II.  [1877],  p.  86)  conjectured  that  the  inscription  on  the 
fragment  of  the  Hemerologii  Allifani  for  August  12,  Herculi  in 
....  V.  V.  h.  V.  V.  Felicit,  should  be  restored  to  Herculi  invicto 
.  .  .  .  et  Veneri  victrici,  Honori  Virtuti  Valentiae  Felicitati. 

To  this  class  of  divinities  may  be  added  a  few  of  the  "specialist 
deities"  ("Sondergottheiten,"  Usener)   springing  from  the  ancient 
Roman  belief  in  spirits,  which  represented  mental  concepts  to  a  cer- 
tain extent,  although  restricted  to  particular  spheres: 
\         MoRTA,  goddess  of  death  (Tert.  Ad  nat.  ii.  15). 


46        DEIFICATION  OF  ABSTRACT  IDEAS  IN  ROMAN  LITERATURE 

Paventia  or  Paventina,  who  caused  fright  among  children 
(August,  iv.  II, •  Tert.  ii.  ii). 

Pecunia.     See  below. 

Praestitia  or  Praestana,  presiding  over  superiority  or  excel- 
lence (Tert.  ii.  ii,  habent  [sc.  deam]  praestantiae,  Praestitiam), 
applied  particularly  to  the  superiority  of  Romulus  in  throwing  the 
spear  (Arnobius  iv.  3). 

Sentinus,  who  aided  the  thought  of  children  (August,  vii.  2.  3 ; 
Tert.  ibid.). 

Strenia,  quae  faceret  strenuum  (August,  iv.  16.  11).  A 
shrine  stood  on  the  Via  sacra  (Varro  L.L.  v.  47). 

TuTiLiNA,   protectress  of  the  stored  harvest    (Varro  L.L.  v. 

163). 

ViCA  PoTA.    See  below,  p.  47. 

VoLETA,  VoLUMNA,  or  VoLUMNUS,  the  Spirit  that  fostered  the 
will    of    children    (Tert.  ibid.;  August,  iv.  21;  Min.  Felix,   Oct. 

25)- 

VoLUPiA. — The  exact  underlying  conception  in  this  goddess  is 
uncertain,  but  according  to  Augustine  (iv.  8.  11)  and  Tertullian 
(ii.  11)  she  presided  over  contentment  and  satisfaction  in  youth. 
Varro  (L.L.  v.  164)  refers  to  a  chapel,  and  Macrobius  (i.  10.  8)  to 
an  altar.  Cf.  Festus  (ed.  Egger),  fr.  26.  The  chapel  was  on  the 
Nova  Via  on  the  Palatine.  Her  festival  was  December  21.  (See 
Mommsen's  restoration  of  the  Fasti  Praenestini,  CIL.  I,  p.  319.) 
The  reason  for  the  worship  of  Angerona  in  this  shrine  is  obscure, 
(cf.  Roscher  I,  p.  233). 

Pecunia. — According  to  Arnobius  iv.  9,  quis  ad  extremum  deam 
Pecuniam  esse  credet,  quam  velut  maximum  numen  vestrae  indicant 
litterae  donare  anulos  aureos,  loca  in  ludis  atque  in  spectaculis 
priora,  honorum  suggestus  summos,  amplitudinem  magistratus,  et 
quod  maxime  pigri  ament,  securum  per  opulentias  otium,  Pecunia 
was  a  deity  of  wealth.  But  Juvenal  i.  113  says:  etsi,  funesta  pecu- 
nia, templo  nondum  habitas,  nullas  nummorum  ereximus  aras;  and 
Seneca  prov.  5  §2:  non  sunt  divitiae  bonum;  itaque  habeat  illas  et 
Elius  leno,  ut  homines  pecuniam,  cum  in  templis  consecraverint  [i.  e., 
made  wealth  sacred  by  storing  it  in  temples]  videant  et  in  fornice; 
which  show  that  there  was  no  cult  of  Pecunia  at  least  in  the 
historical  period. 

Accordingly,  the  explanation  has  been  advanced  that  Arnobius 


DEIFIED  ABSTRACTS  AS  INDIVIDUAL  CULTS  47 

here  and  Augustine  op.  cit.  iv.  21,  misunderstanding  such  jokes  and 
personifications  as  in  Horace  Epist.  i.  6.  37,  ^ 

Scilicet  uxorem  cum  dote  fidemque  et  amicos 

et  genus  et  formam  regina  Pecunia  donat  ** 

ac  bene  nummatum  decorat  Suadela  Venusque, 

considered  them  gods.  But  this  overlooks  the  fact  that  Augustine 
was  arguing  against  Varro's  explanation  of  the  many  gods  as  cog- 
nomina  of  the  one  god  Jupiter.  Cf.  vii.  6:  Dicit  ergo  idem  Varro 
adhuc  de  naturali  theologia  praeloquens  deum  se  arbitrari  esse  ani- 
mam  mundi  et  hunc  ipsum  mundum  esse  deum.  Now,  in  vii.  11  he 
says :  et  inter  eius  alia  cognomina  legerem,  quod  etiam  Pecunia  voca- 

retur,  quam  deam  inter  eos  minuscularios  invenimus Sed  cum 

et  mares  et  feminae  habeant  pecuniam,cur  non  et  Pecunia  et  Pecunius 
appellatus  sit,  sicut  Rumina  et  Ruminus,  ipsi  viderint ;  ch.  xii :  Quam 
vero  eleganter  rationem  huius  nominis  reddiderunt.  "Et  Pecunia," 
inquit,  "vocatur,  quod  eius  sunt  omnia."  Clearly,  therefore,  Augus- 
tine is  quoting  Varro,  and  the  latter  named  two  deities,  Jupiter 
Pecunia  and  Pecunia.  Such  detailed  statements  and  apparent 
quotations  hardly  admit  of  the  supposition  that  Augustine  is  errone- 
ous in  referring  Pecunia  to  the  list  given  by  Varro  (R.  Agahd 
Jahrb.  filr  Philol.  XXIV.  [1898],  p.  220;  cf.  also  Peter  in  Roscher 
II,  p.  145).  Arnobius  is  generally  held  to  have  depended  on  Cor- 
nelius Labeo  (Schanz  op.  cit.  VIII.  3,  p.  164),  who  Agahd  (p.  123) 
thinks  drew  from  Verrius  Flaccus  as  his  source. 

In  view  of  these  facts,  it  is  easiest  to  consider  Pecunia  one 
of  the  spirits  of  the  Indigitamenta  (possibly  named  by  both  Varro 
and  Verrius  Flaccus),  who  had  entirely  vanished,  not  only  from 
worship,  but  from  knowledge,  in  the  period  of  Seneca  and  Juvenal. 
Whether  Pecunia  as  a  cognomen  of  Jupiter  was  a  popular  usage, 
or  simply  Varro's  attempt  to  bring  a  distinct  manifestation  into 
relation  with  one  god,  is  uncertain  (Peter  loc.  cit.  I,  p.  173).  It  is 
plain,  however,  from  such  general  phrases  as  "Pecunia  (lupiter) 
vocatur"  that  Augustine  at  any  rate  understood  Varro  to  be  report- 
ing common  custom  and  not  his  own  theory. 

ViCA  PoTA. — The  origin  and  function  of  this  deity  are  very 
uncertain.  She  was  worshiped  in  Cicero's  time,  and  a  sanctuary  dedi- 
cated to  her  stood  at  the  foot  of  the  Velian  hill  in  the  early  Empire, 
when  she  was  completely  identified  with  Victoria  (Cic.  De  legg.  ii.  11. 
28 ;  Asconius  ad  Cic.  in  Pisonem  52 ;  Liv.  ii.  7.  12 ;  Plut.  Poplicola 


48        DEIFICATION  OF  ABSTRACT  IDEAS  IN  ROMAN  LITERATURE 

lo) .  Almost  all  ancient  and  modern  scholars  derive  the  name  from 
the  verbs  vinco  and  potior  (which  stand  in  the  passage  in  Cicero 
above  mentioned,  but  are  probably  glosses),  and  consider  her  one 
of  the  deities  of  the  Indigitamenta,  with  the  same  office  as  the 
later  Victoria.  A  few,  however,  seem  to  have  regarded  her  as  the 
goddess  of  food  and  drink,  from  victus  and  potus,  and  to  have 
varied  the  name  to  Victua  Potua  (Arnobius  iii.  25;  cf.  Wissowa 
R.-K.,  p.  196) .  But  the  allusion  in  Seneca  Ludus  de  morte  Caesaris 
9.  4  to  Diespiter  Vicae  Potae  et  ipse  designatus  consul,  nummari- 
olus,  has  not  been  satisfactorily  explained  and  has  led  Charles  Hoeing 
(Amer.  Jour,  of  Philol.  XXIV,  p.  323)  to  propose  the  etymology 
|/vik  from  Skr.  vie,  Lat.  vicus  and  pot,  Skr.  pati.  Accordingly, 
he  translates  Vica  Pota  by  "mistress  of  the  people"  or  "mistress  of 
cities,"  and  identifies  her  with  Cybele,  which  explains  Seneca's 
allusions.  This  ingenious  explanation,  however,  lacks  sufficiently 
convincing  evidence  to  be  preferred  to  the  traditional  identification 
with  Victoria. 

III.  OCCASIONAL  AND  INDIVIDUAL  DEIFICATIONS 
Besides  the  public  and  popular  deities  that  have  been  enumerated, 
there  are  many  that  cannot  be  said  to  have  had  a  cult  at  all,  with 
shrines  and  priests.  Yet  the  altars  and  offerings  that  have  come 
down  to  us  show  a  certain  degree  of  worship.  These  deities  consist 
mainly  of  certain  virtues  and  desirable  conditions  brought  into  such 
prominence  by  events  that  in  each  case  the  abstract  quality  is 
revered  and  deified,  but  only  by  an  individual  or  individuals,  and 
only  with  regard  to  a  particular  event.  They  are  embryonic  cults, 
which  did  not  spread  at  all,  because  they  were  not  of  general  impor- 
tance and  touched  only  special  things  and  persons. 

A  fine  illustration  of  the  extent  to  which  such  manufacture  of 
gods  out  of  occasional  appellatives  was  carried  is  given  us  by 
Tacitus  {Ann,  i.  14.  3),  who,  in  describing  the  honors  given  Tiberius 
on  his  accession  in  14  a.  d.,  says :  aramque  Adoptionis  et  alia  huius- 
cemodi  prohibuit.  The  servile  Senate  proposed  to  deify,  not  a 
virtue,  nor  necessarily  a  desirable  action,  but  merely  one  of  the 
ordinary  acts  of  the  human  family.  And  more  than  that,  not  even 
the  idea  of  adoption  in  general,  simply  the  particular  adoption  of 
Tiberius  by  Augustus,  was  thus  to  be  venerated.  Editors  of  Tacitus 
have  quite  generally  called  this  altar,  as  well  as  those  to  Clementia  and 
Amicitia  (Tac.  Ann.  iv.  74),  simply  commemorative,  and  print  the 


DEIFIED   ABSTRACTS   AS   INDIVIDUAL   CULTS  49 

words  as  common  nouns.  But  something  more  than  commemora- 
tion was  the  intent  of  the  Senate.  The  altar  denoted  worship — 
sham,  hypocritical  worship,  it  is  true,  and  in  reality  nothing  but 
disguised  obsequiousness ;  yet  it  was  the  form  of  worship  exactly  as 
much  in  essence  as  the  temple  to  Fecunditas  under  Nero  showed. 

Instances  of  these  occasional  deifications  attested  in  inscriptions 
and  historical  literature  which  I  have  collected  are  as  follows: 

Amicitia. — Tac.  Ann.  iv.  74:  ita  .  .  .  .     (sc.  senatores)   aram 

>     Clementiae,  aram  Amicitiae  effigiesque  circum  Caesaris  ac  Seiani 

censuere.    This  took  place  in  28  a.  d.  when,  as  Tacitus  himself  says 

in  the  preceding  sentence,  pavor  internus  occupaverat  animos,  cui 

remedium  adulatione  quaerebatur. 

>^  CiviTAS. — CIL.  VI.  88 :  Civitati  sacrum  A.  Aemilius  Artema  fecit. 

As  Artema  is  a  slave-name  of  Greek  origin  from    dpTe/irjSf  it  is 

.        likely  that  this  man,  on  securing  his  manumission  and  becoming  a 

^     citizen,  set  up  an  altar  to  his  patron  deity  "Citizenship." 

Dies  Bonus. — CIL.  VIII.  9323 :  Die  Bono  M.  Allecimus  Athic- 
tus  dedit  libens.     Beneath  is  the  figure  of  a  boy,  bonus  puer  Phos- 
phorus.    (Steuding  in  Roscher.)     Perhaps  Bonus  Dies  is  another 
^  name  for  Phosphorus. 

Fama. — This  name  occurs  in  two  inscriptions  in  Spain  (II. 
1435)  and  Cologne  (Orelli  5817),  of  which  the  former  is  reported 
second  hand  as  reading  Famae  Aug.  The  cognomen,  however,  is 
probably  not  official,  as  Fama  is  entirely  lacking  on  coins.  The 
depreciating  descriptions  of  Fama,  as  "Rumor,"  by  Vergil,  Horace, 
and  Ovid,  do  not  show  the  conception  contained  in  these  dedica- 
tions. It  is  rather  the  same  as  the  Greek  EvkA-cui,  who  had  a 
temple  in  Athens.  Cf.  also  the  poetical  fragment  (Bahrens  V,  pp. 
421  f.),  where  Fama  z=  Gloria  and  is  mentioned  with  Venus,  Cupid, 
and  the  Muses ;  Martial  i.  25.  5 : 

Ante  fores  stantem  dubitas  admittere  Famam 
Teque  piget  curae  praemia  ferre  tuae. 

CIL.  XL  15 17:    Primisina  Severina  bone  fame  fidelisque.  A  colony 
\  existed  in  Spain  named  Fama  Julia  (Plin.  N.H.  iii.  14). 

Gloria. — CIL.   VIII.   6949:     Gloriae   Aug.    sacrum — on   altar 

from  Cirta,  Africa.    Renown  here  is  the  sense  as  in  Fama.     (Wis- 

sowa  R.-K.,  p.  280,  calls  Gloria  a  pure  appellative.) 

^  RoBUR. — CIL.  XIII.  1112:    Deo  Robori  et  Genio  loci — Aquita- 

nia.    If  this  inscription  is  genuine,  and  Robori  is  not  the  name  of  a 


50        DEIFICATION  OF  ABSTRACT  IDEAS  IN  ROMAN  LITERATURE 

Celtic  god,  we  may  see  in  Robur  a  god  of  firmness  against  attack, 
presiding  perhaps,  over  some  fortification  (cf.  Hor.  Carm.  i.  3.  9, 
illi  robur  et  aes  triplex  circa  pectus  erat)  ;  or,  possibly,  of  vigor  and 
strength  with  direct  allusion  to  the  picked  troops  (cf.  Cic.  Ad  jam. 
X.  33,  et  robur  et  suboles  militum  interiit;  Caes.  B.  C.  iii.  87,  quod 
fuit  roboris  duobus  proeliis  interiit)  ;  or  of  the  prison  (cf.  Liv. 
xxxviii.  59;  Tac.  Ann.  iv.  29). 

Tempus  Bonum. — CIL.  III.  13747:  Tempori  Bono  pro  salute 
dominorum  Imp.  n.  1.  Septimi  Severi  Pertenacis  (sic)  et  M.  Aurel. 
Antonini  Augg.  et  Septimi  |  |  |  |  (Tyra,  Moesia).  This  is  an  occa- 
sional deity  referring,  according  to  Matweew  (Acta  soc.  hist  or.  et 
archaeol.  Odessit.  1890,  August  23),  to  immunity  from  taxes 
granted  the  people  of  Tyra  by  Emperors  Severus  and  Caracalla. 
Hence  Tempus  Bonum  =  "Happy  Time"  or  "Good  Fortune." 
This  conclusion  is  suported  by  a  Greek  inscription  containing  a 
letter  of  the  emperors  to  the  same  people  for  the  same  years  (III. 
781),  referring  to  their  generosity  and  the  good  fortune  of  the 
Tyrenses  (ry  fJieydX-p  avrw  Tvxy)' 

Testimonius  or  Testimonium. — CIL.  VIII.  8246,  8247.  Two 
priests  of  Saturn  in  Numidia  offer  eight  various  animals  each  as 
sacrifices  to  the  d(i)  b(oni)(?),  including  Jupiter,  Hercules, 
Venus,  and  Mercury,  among  which  is  a  wether  to  Testimonius 
(-um).    The  motive  or  meaning  cannot  be  made  out. 

Ultio. — Tac.  Ann.  iii.  18.  3:  atque  idem  cum  Valerius  Messa- 
linus  signum  aureum  in  aede  Martis  Ultoris,  Caecina  Severus  aram 
Ultioni  (so  the  best  manuscripts,  not  Ultionis)  statuendam  cen- 
suissent,prohibuit,ob  externas  ea  victorias  sacrari  dictitans  domes- 
tica  mala  tristitia  operienda  (20  a.  d.).  The  dative  case  and  the 
word  sacrari  seem  to  indicate  a  degree  of  worship,  and  no  doubt  on 
this  altar  sacrifices  would  have  been  made.  Out  of  this  beginning 
another  imperial  cult  with  a  regular  temple  might  have  developed, 
had  the  emperor  not  interfered.  As  Wissowa  points  out  (R.-K., 
p.  48,  n.  3),  it  is  a  good  example  of  the  separation  of  an  abstract 
deity  from  an  anthropomorphic  god. 

DOUBTFUL  EXAMPLES 

Under  this  head  I  have  grouped  a  numl?er  of  heterogeneous 
abstracts  for  which  the  evidence  is  very  dubious.  They  are  literary 
personifications  on  the  border-line  of  deification,  abstractions  used 


DEIFIED  ABSTRACTS  AS  INDIVIDUAL  CULTS  5 1 

as  periphrases  for  other  gods,  or  singular  cases  with  obscure  evi- 
dence insufficient  to  establish  a  probability. 

Adventus. — CIL.  VI.  795:  Adventui  Aug.  feliciter,  Victoriis 
Aug.  feliciter.  This  is  not  the  reading  given  by  the  Corpus,  which 
substitutes  Eventui  for  Adventui  and  in  the  footnote  gives  the 
latter  as  the  traditional  reading.  The  inscription  is  grouped  with 
the  regular  sacred  tituli.  Following  this  conjecture,  writers  have 
considered  this  an  inscription  to  the  god  Eventus  Augustus  (e.  g., 
Wissowa  R.-K.,  p.  216,  n.  2)  ;  Ruggiero  Dis,  I,  p.  927),  but  it  is 
more  probably  an  acclamatio  on  the  occasion  of  an  emperor's  return 
to  Rome,  meaning :  "Hurrah  for  the  arrival  of  the  emperor !  Hur- 
rah for  the  victories  of  the  emperor!"  Outside  of  coins,  where  it 
appears  as  early  as  the  reign  of  Trajan,  the  name  does  not  appear, 
except  possibly  as  a  cognomen  of  Jupiter  (HI.  6340;  see  note). 

CoNSTANTiA. — Found  on  coins  only.  Peter,  in  Roscher,  con- 
siders this  a  deification  by  analogy  of  others.  So  apparently  do 
Preller  and  Wissowa. 

CupiDO. — Cupido  is  a  literary  personification,  a  translation  of 
the  Greek  *Epa>s  of  Hesiod.  He  never  received  true  worship 
among  the  people,  and  outside  of  literature  is  rarely  found  except 
in  statues  and  scenes  upon  mirrors,  etc.;  e.  g.  CIL.  1.  58.  However, 
one  case  exists — a  curious  inscription  from  Spain  (II.  2407),  in 
which  he  is  grouped  with  all  the  main  divinities  and  his  name,  like 
theirs,  is  in  the  dative.  In  Plautus  and  other  early  literature  we 
find  a  single  Cupid,  but  the  Alexandrine  conception  of  many 
Cupids  occurs  often  in^  later  times. 

CuRA. — A  certain  clay  cup  like  those  described  in  Ritschl's  Ex- 
empla,  Tab.  X.,  long  ago  lost,  was  said  to  have  the  legend  Coerae 
pocolo.  Mommsen  {CIL.  I.  45)  suspected  its  genuineness  because  of 
the  omission  of  m  in  pocolo,  but  this  objection  was  set  aside  by  a 
parallel  omission  in  the  phrase  Vestae  pocolo  on  a  fragment  found 
at  Lanuvium  (Notizie  1895,  p.  45).  Wilmanns  (Eph.  Epig.  I, 
no.  6)  cited  a  picture  of  a  cup,  found  by  Zangemeister,  among  the 
additions  to  a  list  of  antiquities  published  in  1708,  which  was 
inscribed:  COTRA  POCOVO.  This  inscription  he  identified  with 
ours,  and  is  supported  in  this  identification  by  Dessau  op.  cit.  II. 
2960.  But  the  one  inscription  reads  Cotra  and  the  other  Coerae. 
Great  doubt  exists  as  to  the  meaning,  but  if  it  is  equivalent  to  Cura, 
the  meaning  is  more  likely  the  same  as  that  of  Horace's  "atra 
Cura,"  rather  than  synonymous  with  Mens,  as  Jordan  (Ann.  Inst. 


52        DEIFICATION  OF  ABSTRACT  IDEAS  IN  ROMAN  LITERATURE 

Arch.  1884,  p.  15)  understood  it.  Hyginus  (ccxx  ed.  Schmidt)  pre- 
served a  fable  in  early  Latin  poetry  of  Cura  and  lovis,  Tellus  and 
Saturnus,  disputing  over  the  name  of  a  man  whom  Cura  had  made 
out  of  clay.    This  myth  was  doubtless  Greek. 

Fatus,  Fatum. — Fatum  was  not  a  deity  among  the  Romans,  but 
the  plural  Fata  were  simply  a  translation  of  the  Greek  Moirae,  and 
became  not  only  a  Latin  literary  concept,  but  a  part  of  religious 
belief,  and  frequently  were  given  inscriptions  and  statues.  (Peter, 
in  Roscher  I,  p.  1447;  Wissowa  R.-K.,  p.  213,  n.  4;  p.  214,  n.  i.) 

As  to  Fatus,  which  is  common  in  the  carmina  sepulchralia,  this 
is  much  more  probably  a  grammatical  variant  for  fatum,  as  Wis- 
sowa holds,  than  an  anthropomorphic  conception  like  a  genius,  as 
Jordan  {Hermes  VIL  197)  and  Peter  (loc.  cit.)  thought.  This  is 
strikingly  illustrated  by  comparing  two  examples  of  the  same 
stereotyped  epitaph:  VL  4379,  noli  dolere,  amica,  eventum  meum 
properavit  aetas:  hoc  dedit  fatw.y  mihi,  and  VL  8023,  nolite  dolere 
eventum  meum,  properavit  aetas ;  hoc  dedit  f atwm  mihi. 

But  we  meet  with  Fati  and  Fatae  upon  inscriptions  from  Gaul 
whose  meaning  is  obscure.  They  may  be  provincial  and  foreign 
deities  translated  into  the  nearest  Latin  equivalents  (Wissowa 
R.-K.,  p.  214). 

HiLARiTAS. — This  is  found  only  on  coins  of  a  few  emperors 
beginning  with  Hadrian.  Dressel  (CIL.  XIV.  192-96)  identifies 
a  figure  on  brick  stamps  of  the  age  of  Severus  as  Hilar itas.  But 
the  conjecture  by  Steuding  (Roscher  I,  p.  2659)  that  Hilare  in 
CIL.  111.  1680  (=8248)  is  Hila(ritati)  Re(ginae)  is  very  improb- 
able, because,  as  8248  shows,  the  words  in  this  inscription  are 
widely  spaced,  but  Hilare  is  run  together  into  one  word. 

Laetitia. — Eckhel  (DNU.  VH,  p.  21)  conjectures  a  public  cult 
from  a  coin  of  Commodus  reading  P.  D.  S.  P.  Q.  R.  Laetitiae  C.  V. 
S.  C.  =  Senatus  Populusqne  Romanus  Laetitiae  Coronam  Vovit, 
Senatus  Consulto ;  cf.  Drexler  in  Roscher. 

Lubentia. — Plant.  Asin.  268:  Ut  ego  illos  lubentiores  faciam 
quam  Lubentiast.  Peter,  in  Roscher  H.  201  f .,  hazards  the  guess  that 
Lubentia  is  the  same  as  Lubentina,  just  as  Paventia  and  Paventina 
are  synonymous.  He,  however,  wrongly  cites  Hiibrich  De  diis  Plau- 
tinis  as  treating  her  among  deities.  On  the  contrary,  Hiibrich  dis- 
tinctly says  (p.  55)  it  is  a  fictitious  deity,  "quales  saepe  poeta 
finxit  deas."  He  argues  simply  that  Lubentia  was  not  a  cognomen 
of  Venus.    With  him  I  am  inclined  to  agree. 


DEIFIED  ABSTRACTS  AS  INDIVmUAL  CULTS  53 

Maiestas. — In  two  inscriptions  (VI.  254;  III.  449)  occurs  the 
phrase  Genio  ac  Maiestati  with  the  names  of  Antoninus  Pius  and 
Diocletian.  Similarly  Numini  Maiestatique  is  used  of  Constantine 
(VIII.  12062,  12063).  Here  it  is  evident  that  Maiestas  is  a  circum- 
locution for  the  emperor  himself.  The  genealogy  of  Ovid  (Fasti 
V.  25),  which  represents  Maiestas  as  the  daughter  of  Honor  and 
Reverentia,  is  purely  poetic. 

Memoria. — That  this  conception  was  ever  embodied  as  a  god- 
dess is  very  uncertain.  There  is  absolutely  no  evidence  for  an 
official  or  private  cult  in  Rome,  and  the  name  does  not  appear  on 
coins  till  the  very  late  Empire  (see  Cohen  VIII,  Index).  On  the 
other  hand,  Arnobius  (295  a.  d.)  clearly  conceived  of  her  as  a  deity, 
including  her  in  the  list  of  characteristic  deified  abstracts:  nihil 
horum  [i.  e.,  abstracts]  sentimus  et  cernimus  habere  vim  numinis 
neque  in  aliqua  contineri  sui  generis  forma,  sed  esse  virtutem  viri, 
salutem  salvi,  honorem  honorati,  victoris  victoriam,  concordis  con- 
cordiam,  pietatem  pii,  memoriam  memoris,  feliciter  vero  viventis 
ac  sine  ulHs  offensionibus  felicitatem  (Arn.  iv.  2). 

All  these  qualities  had  well-known  public  cults  in  Rome,  and 
hence  memoria  is  not  introduced  merely  as  a  mental  concept,  but  as 
one  that  had  been  deified.  But  though  Arnobius  went  back  through 
Labeo  to  Varro  or  Verrius  Flaccus,  possibly  (cf.  Teuflfel-Schwabe, 
§396,  2;  Jahrb.  f.  Phil.  XXIV,  p.  123),  for  his  source,  it  may 
well  be  that  in  this  list  a  Greek  deity  has  crept  in,  since  Arnobius 
attacked  both  Latin  and  Greek  religions.  In  another  passage  (iii. 
37),  Musas  Mnaseas  est  auctor  filias  esse  Telluris  et  Caeli,  lovis 
ceteri  praedicant  ex  Memoria  uxore  vel  Mente,  Memoria  is  the 
translation  of  the  Greek  MvyjfixHrvvrj ;  cf.  ii.  70;  iii.  37.  Servius 
Ad  Aen.  iii.  607  says:  physici  dicunt  esse  consecratas  numinibus 
singulas  corporis  partes,  ut  aurem  Memoriae  .  .  .  .  ;  frontem 
Genio,  unde  venerantes  deum  tangimus  frontem:  dextram  Fidei 
....  ;  genua  Misericordiae :  unde  haec  tangunt  rogantes.  The 
commentator  is  confusing  Greek  with  Roman,  as  is  clear  from  the 
mention  of  Misericordia  =  "EXeos  who  had  an  altar  in  Athens,  but 
none  in  Rome. 

Heron  de  Villefosse  (Comptes-rendus  des  seances,  p.  ix;  Cagnat 
L'ann.  epig.  1899,  no.  47)  proposes  to  restore  an  inscription  from 
Carthage  as  follows:  S(aturno)  A(ugusto)  s(acrum)  Q.  Fabius 
Sat(urninus)  sacer(dos)  Martis,  tem(enorus)  aed(is)  Memo- 
(riae)  et  Fortunula  coiux  eius  cum  filis  suis  votum  solvit.    The  use 


54        DEIFICATION  OF  ABSTRACT  IDEAS  IN  ROMAN  LITERATURE 

of  temenorus  {re/iivovpo^  Kaibel,  Epig.  Gr.,  no.  781,  1.  11:  rcfie- 
vwpov,  T€fjL€vov^  (f>v>MKa,  HcsycHius)  as  a  Latin  word  is  unsupported, 
and  hence  is  a  mere  conjecture. 

In  another  inscription  from  Africa  near  Tunis  (Bulletin  de  la 
Societe  nationale  des  Antiquaires  de  France  1903;  Uann.  epig. 
1904,  no.  83),  dated  161-69  a.  d.,  we  read:  pro  salute  Imp.  Caes. 
M.  Aureli  Antonini  ....  statuas  [me]mo[r]iae  temporum  quat- 
tuor  decreto  decurionum  p[osu]it,  item  dedicationis  die  epulum 
decurionibus  dedit.  The  index  to  Uann.  epig.  loc.  cit.  includes 
Memoria  as  a  deity,  but  it  is  not  clear  whether  "memoriae"  is  dative 
or  genitive.  If  the  former,  memoriae  =  pro  memoria;  if  the  latter, 
it  is  personified,  but  this  is  not  conclusive  evidence  of  worship.  On 
the  whole,  therefore,  stronger  proof  must  be  adduced  before  admit- 
ting the  deification  of  this  idea  with  either  public  or  private  cult. 

However,  there  is  abundant  evidence  to  show  that  the  quality  of 
memory  was  revered  and  almost  sacred,  especially  as  applied  to  the 
memory  of  deceased  friends.  Numerous  inscriptions  have  Memoriae 
sacrum  (VI.  23057,  17398),  Bonae  Memoriae  (III.  7436;  XL  81),  in 
place  of  Dis  Manibus  (and  some  with  it,  e.  g.,  XL  1097),  followed  by 
the  genitive  and  often  by  the  dative.  It  may  be  conjectured  that, like 
the  Di  Manes,  the  memory  of  the  departed  may  have  been  thought 
1  of  as  a  spirit  guarding  his  existence  in  the  minds  and  hearts  of  his 
!  friends.  The  closeness  with  which  the  quality  memoria  approaches 
•the  deity  Memoria  is  seen  in  the  connection  with  other  deities ;  e.  g., 
VI.  10958,  Deanae  et  Memoriae  Aeliae  Proculae;  VI.  15594,  For- 
tunae  Spei  Veneri  et  Memoriae  Claud (iae)  Semnes  sacrum. 

Moles  Martis. — Aulus  Gellius  (xiii.  23.  2)  mentions  certain 
peculiar  names  written  in  the  books  of  the  public  priests  as  fol- 
lows: Luam  Saturni,  Salaciam  Neptuni,  Horam  Quirini,  Virites 
Quirini,  Maiam  Volcani,  Heriem  lunonis.  Moles  Martis,  Nerienem- 
que  Martis.  Mommsen  {Hermes  XVII,  p.  637)  suggested  that  the 
powers  of  Mars  may  be  here  personified.  The  Feriale  Cumanum 
{CIL.  P.  229)  records  a  supplicatio  to  them  for  May  12,  the  anni- 
versary of  the  temple  of  Mars. 

Mors. — It  is  extremely  doubtful  if  the  Romans  ever  worshiped 
a  goddess  Mors,  for  when  Servius  {Ad  A  en.  xi.  197)  says  Morti 
ipsi,  deae,  he  is  relying  on  the  poetical  lines  of  Statins  {Theb.  iv. 
528)  and  Lucan  (vi.  600)  ;  the  words  of  Tertullian  {Ad  nat.  ii.  15), 
et  ipsius  mortis  dea  est,  may  be  referring  to  the  spirit  Morta  in  the 
Indigitamenta  (see  above).    Moreover,  the  carmina  sepulchralia  in 


DEIFIED  ABSTRACTS  AS  INDIVIDUAL  CULTS  55 

which  Mors  occurs  so  frequently  (see  the  complete  collection  by 
Peter  in  Roscher  11.  3220)  are  very  figurative.  Of  course,  it  is 
quite  possible  that  individuals  conceived  of  death  itself  as  a  spirit 
quite  distinct  from  Dis,  Orcus,  or  Pluto.  Plautus  (Cist.  639; 
Bacch.  II 52;  Capt.  692)  merely  personified  death. 

Letus,  too,  which  occurs  in  an  epitaph  (VI.  19007),  quam  mor- 
tis acerbus  eripuit  Letus  teneramque  ad  Tartara  duxit,  is  poetical, 
the  change  in  gender  from  the  neuter  Letum  being  a  part  of  the 
vividness  of  the  personification  or  merely  a  grammatical  variant  of 
vulgar  Latin.    Cf^  Fatus. 

Natura. — L'ann.  epig.  1899,  no.  yy:  Naturae  dei  Prudens 
Primi  Antoni  Rufi  p.  p.  vil.  vie.  This  is,  of  course,  a  periphrasis 
equivalent  to  deo.  Natura,  however,  is  frequently  personified  by 
Statins  and  Claudianus. 

BoNUM  Negotium. — From  the  fragmentary  inscription  (Eph. 
Epig,  V.  916),  ....  ivii  ....  egotivm  C.  Clodius  C.  f.  Surus 
Diem  Bonum,  Mommsen  conjectured  Bonum  Negotium  and  com- 
pared it  with  Bonus  Eventus.    It  is  more  probably  an  acclamation. 

Pallor  and  Pavor. — These  personifications  were  long  believed 
to  have  had  an  ancient  cult  dating  from  the  reign  of  Tullus  Hos- 
tilius,  who,  the  legend  ran,  vowed  them  in  the  battle  against  Fidenae 
(Liv.  i.  2y.  7:  Tullus  in  re  trepida  duodecim  vovit  Salios  fanaque 
Pallori  ac  Pavori).  This,  however,  is  our  only  source,  for  it  has 
long  been  shown  that  all  references  to  these  deities  follow  Livy  in 
time,  and  probably  were  taken  directly  from  him.  The  supposed 
images  of  the  gods  on  coins  of  L.  Hostilius  Sasenna  (Babelon  I, 
pp.  52  f.)  are  more  probably  figures  of  a  Gallic  man  and  woman. 
Moreover,  the  fact  that  Cicero  does  not  refer  to  these  deities  in  any 
of  the  several  passages  where  he  speaks  of  evil  gods  has  some 
weight  as  negative  evidence.  We  are  therefore  justified  in  believ- 
ing that  Livy's  account  was  based  on  a  tradition  which  was  perhaps 
handed  down  by  the  annalists  and  was  due  to  a  mere  personification 
in  some  early  poetical  account  of  the  battle  (written  by  Ennius, 
Wissowa  suggests)  which  was  misunderstood  as  an  actual  deifica- 
tion.    See  Wissowa  in  Roscher  for  full  references. 

Prosperitas  Deorum. — CIL.  III.  4557 :  Deorum  prosperitati  G. 
Mar(cus)  Marcianus  decurio  ....  s(olvit)  l(ibens)  l(aetus) 
m(erito).    Deorum  prosperitati=dis  pro  prosperitate  eorum. 

Rixus. — The  letters  RIT  on  a  mirror  beside  the  figure  of  a  sit- 
ting youth  to  whom  Vi(c)toria  is  speaking  together  with  Venus  and 


56        DEIFICATION  OF  ABSTRACT  IDEAS  IN  ROMAN  LITERATURE 

Cupido  were  conjectured  by  Mommsen  {CIL,  I.  58;  XIV.  -^096)  to 
stand  for  Ritus  =  ©e<r/tAos,  a  nuptial  divinity. 

Sanctitas. — CIL.  XII.  2981 :  Sanctitati  lovis  et  Augusti  sac- 
rum Lucilius  Cesti;  III.  3292:  sacrum  dis  magnis  maioribus  et 
sanctissimae  sanctitati.  In  the  first  example  sanctitati  lovis  =  Sanc- 
tis lovi  et  Augusto;  in  the  second,  the  word  eorum  is  probably  to 
be  supplied.  The  editor  of  the  Corpus,  however,  capitalizes  and 
indexes  Sanctitas  as  a  deity. 

SoRS. — CIL.  X.  6303:  Dominae  Isidi  Flavia  Marcellin(a) 
Sortis  signum  Menphiticum  cum  collari  argenteo  p(osuit) 
d(e)dicavitque)  l(oco)  d(ato)  d(ecurionum)  d(ecreto).  See  also 
Mart.  Capella  i.  88,  where  Sors  is  made  equivalent  to  Nemesis. 
Pliny  {N.  H.  ii.  7.  22)  says :  adeoque  obnoxiae  sumus  sortis,  ut  sors 
ipsa  pro  deo  sit,  qua  deus  probatur  incertus.  See  also  image  on 
coin  (69  B.C.;  Babelon  II,  p.  315). 

AuREA  Tempora. — C/L.  VIII.  18328  :Aureis  temporibus  ddd  nnn. 
Gratiani  Valentiniani  et  Theodosi  perpetuorum  et  divinorum,  etc. 
Here  aureis  temporibus  is  probably  ablative  of  time. 

Verecundia. — CIL.  XIV.  1792:  lunoni  et  Verecundiae  Ulpiae 
Compses  q(uae)  v(ixit),  etc.  Apparently  the  father  who  set  this  up 
conceived  of  a  spirit  protecting  the  maidenly  modesty  of  his  little 
child.     Cf.  Wilmanns  Exempla  237. 

Vis. — Ausonius,  in  a  poem  enumerating  some  of  the  gods,  says 
(xi.  8.  4),  et  soror  et  coniunx  fratris,  regina  deum,  Vis,  appar- 
ently personifying  the  idea  of  vis  caelestrum,  vis  superum  (Verg. 
Aen.  vii.  432 ;  i.  4)  and  making  her  equivalent  to  Juno,  from  a  mis- 
understanding of  the  following  passages :  vii.  428,  ipsa  palam  fari 
omnipotens  Saturnia  iussit;  432,  caelestum  vis  magna  iubet;  i.  4, 
vi  superum  saevae  memorem  lunonis  ob  iram,  Hyginus  (ii,2oed. 
Schmidt),  represents  Vis,  Victoria,  Invidia,  and  Potestas  as 
daughters  of  Pallas  and  Styx. 

An  altar  at  Aquileia  has  the  dedication:  Vi  divinae  sacrum 
(V.  837).  This,  however,  probably  refers  to  the  t^urobolium 
offered  to  Magna  Mater  (cf.  viribus  aeterni  taurobolio,  V.  6961, 
6962;  vires  excepit,  XIII.  1751 ;  vires  tauri,  XIII.  522,  525)  ;  or  to 
Belenus,  a  god  of  the  healing  springs  in  Aquileia  (V.  754,  755). 
The  medicinal  powers  of  mineral  springs  were  also  deified ;  e.  g. : 
XI.  1 162,  Nymphis  et  Viribus  Augusti;  V.  8248,  Viribus  Aug.;  V. 
5648,  Lymfis  Virib(us). 

ViTULA. — Macrobius  iii.  2.  13:  Hyllus   [Hyginus  (?),  note  by 


DEIFIED  ABSTRACTS   AS   INDIVIDUAL  CULTS  57 

Mommsen  to  CIL.  I,  p.  26]  libro  quern  de  dis  composuit,  ait  Vitu- 
1am  vocari  deam,  quae  laetitiae  praeest:  Piso  ait  Vitulam  Vic- 
toriam  nominari,  cuius  rei  hoc  argumentum  profert,  quod  postridie 
Nonas  lulias  re  bene  gesta,  cum  pridie  populus  a  Tuscis  in  fugam 
versus  sit  ...  .  post  victoriam  certis  sacrificiis  fiat  vitulatio.  It  is 
open  to  doubt  whether  this  passage  was  any  more  than  a  mistaken 
reading  of  earHer  Hterature  predicated  from  the  uncommon  word 
vitulatio.  The  identifications  with  Victoria  and  Vitellia  are  cer- 
tainly wrong.  Cf .  Baudrillart  op.  cit.,  pp.  44  ff. ;  Jordan  in  Preller 
I,  p.  407,  n.  3.  Hyginus,  moreover,  is  hardly  to  be  depended  upon 
for  accuracy. 

VoLUPTAS. — Cicero  De  nat.  deor.  ii.  23.  61 :  quarum  omnium 
rerum  [i.  e.,  Concordia,  Libertas,  etc.]  quia  vis  erat  tanta  ut  sine  deo 
regi  non  posset  ipsa  res  deorum  nomen  obtinuit.  Quo  ex  genere 
Cupidinis   et  Voluptatis   et   Lubentinae   Veneris,   vocabula   conse- 

crata  sunt,  vitiosarum  rerum  neque  naturalium No  other 

evidence  exists  for  this  deification,  and  Cicero  had  in  mind  probably 
t;  ^  Volupia  or  a  Greek  goddess.  Plautus  (Bacch.  115)  names  Volup- 
tas  among  a  number  of  fictitious  gods.  Quintilian  (ix.  2.  36)  treats 
it  as  a  rhetorical  personification  by  Xenophon.  It  was  common 
elsewhere  in  Latin  literature;  e.g.,  Apul.  Met.  vi.  24;  Stat.  Silv. 
i.  3.  9;  Claudian.  x.  82;  cf.  CIL.  XL  6565. 


\ 


PART  11.    THE  DEIFIED  ABSTRACTS  AS  A  CLASS 

I.    THEIR  ORIGIN 

Having  looked  over  the  individual  abstractions  which  were 
hypostatized  as  gods,  we  may  now  turn  to  more  general  questions 
touching  the  whole  class.  One  of  the  first  to  be  suggested,  namely 
the  origin,  is  also  one  of  the  most  complex  and  difficult  questions, 
and  has  given  rise  to  great  diversity  of  opinion.  It  is  really 
involved  in  the  broader  question  of  the  origin  of  the  whole  Roman 
religious  system.  However,  with  a  metaphysical  and  philosophical 
investigation  of  the  basis  of  this  system  we  are  not  primarily 
concerned.  The  relation  of  our  class  of  deities  to  this  religion  is 
the  chief  question.  Were  they  (i)  an  inherent  and  essential  part 
of  the  oldest  Roman  belief;  or  (2)  a  later  internal  development  out 
of  an  earlier  stage;  or  (3)  an  external  addition  to,  or  parasitic 
growth  upon,  the  original  system? 

Of  these  three  alternatives  we  may  at  once  dismiss  the  third.  It 
has  not  been  maintained  by  any  investigator,  so  far  as  I  know. 
These  divinities  appear  long  before  the  period  of  Greek  influence, 
and  while  the  neighbors  of  the  Romans  had  abstract  gods  who  were 
adopted  by  them — Fortuna  for  example — yet  there  is  no  evidence 
to  indicate  that  any  one  or  all  of  them  brought  about  the  genesis  of 
this  class  of  deities.  One  of  the  very  earliest  cults,  Concordia,  was 
certainly  native. 

For  the  two  other  theories  there  have  been  spokesmen.  Momm- 
sen  held  the  first — namely,  that  the  conception  of  such  deities  was 
an  essential  part  of  the  ancient  Roman  religion.  He  says: 
(Romische  Geschichte,  p.  223,  English  translation)  : 

Abstraction  and  personification  lay  at  the  root  of  the  Roman  as  well  as 
of  the  Hellenic  mythology:  the  Hellenic  as  well  as  the  Roman  god  was 
originally  suggested  by  some  natural  phenomenon  or  some  mental  concep- 
tion and  to  the  Roman  just  as  to  the  Greek  every  divinity  appeared  a  person. 
.  ...  But  while  abstraction,  which  lies  at  the  foundation  of  every  religion, 
elsewhere  endeavored  to  rise  to  wider  and  more  enlarged  conceptions  and  to 
penetrate  ever  more  deeply  into  the  essence  of  things,  the  forms  of  the 
Roman  faith  remained  at,  or  sank  to,  a  singularly  low  level  of  conception^ 
and  insight.  While  in  the  case  of  the  Greek  every  important  notion  speedily 
expanded  into  a  group  of  forms  and  gathered  around  it  a  circle  of  legends 

59 


6o        DEIFICATION  OF  ABSTRACT  IDEAS  IN  ROMAN  LITERATURE 

and  ideas,  in  the  case  of  the  Roman  the  fundamental  thought  remained 
stationary  in  its  original  naked  rigidity. 

Again  (pp.  52  ff.)  he  says: 

Throughout  the  whole  of  nature,  he  adored  the  spiritual  and  the  universal. 
To  everything  existing,  to  the  man  and  the  tree,  to  the  state  and  the  store- 
room, was  assigned  a  spirit  which  came  into  being  with  it  and  perished 
along  with  it,  the  counterpart  of  the  natural  phenomenon  in  the  spiritual 

domain The  larger  the  sphere  embraced  in  the  abstraction,  the  higher 

rose  the  god  and  the  reverence  paid  by  man.  Thus  Jupiter  and  Juno  are 
the  abstractions  of  manhood  and  womanhood:  Dea  Dia  or  Ceres,  the 
creative  power;  Minerva,  the  power  of  memory;  Dea  Bona  ....  the  good 
deity. 

Mommsen,  it  is  clear,  drew  no  line  between  the  spiritualization  of 
concrete  and  abstract  concepts. 

Boissier  (La  religion  romaine  d' August e  aux  Antonins,  pp.  8  f.) 
is  more  explicit.  Speaking  of  the  tendency  of  the  Romans  to  create 
numina,  whenever  the  divinity  appeared  to  be  revealed  in  a  new 
way,  he  says: 

Ces  dieux  qu'il  cree  ainsi  a  tout  moment  ne  sont  en  realite  que  des 

actes    divins;    et   voila  pourquoi   ils  sont  si  nombreux C'est  aussi  la 

raison  qui  donna  aux  Romains  plus  qu'a  toutes  les  autres  nations  de 
I'antiquite  le  gout  des  abstractions  divinisees.  Gomme  en  realite  tous  leurs 
dieux,  meme  les  plus  grands,  ne  sont  que  des  qualites  ou  des  attributs  divins, 
et  qu'ils  ont  tou jours  un  peu  conserve  leur  caractere  abstrait,  il  n'est  pas 
surprenant  qu'on  ait  pris  vite  Thabitude  d'introduire  de  simples  abstractions 
dans  leur  compagnie.  Cest  un  usage  qui  ne  s'etablit  ordinairement  dans  les 
religions  que  lorsqu'elles  sont  vieilles ;  nous  le  trouvons  a  Rome  des  les  temps 

les    plus    recules Le   polytheisme    s'etait    forme    chez    eux    par    voie 

d'analyse  abstraite  .  .  .  .  et  jusqu'a  la  fin  ils  ont  mis  dans  le  ciel  plutot  des 
abstractions  que  des  etres  vivants. 

On  the  other  hand,  later  writers  have  held  that  at  the  outset  there 
was  no  general  tendency  to  spiritualize  purely  mental  concepts, 
but  that  they  were  a  later  development  from  the  simple  worship  of 
a  comparatively  few  visible  concrete  objects  of  nature.  In  the 
course  of  time  certain  epithets  expressing  qualities  and  virtues 
became  attached  to  these  hypostatized  objects,  and  became  impor- 
tant, inasmuch  as  they  expressed  a  certain  side  or  function  of  the 
god's  activity,  which  appealed  to  certain  worshipers  in  contrast  to 
\  other  sides  and  functions ;  e.  g.,  Jupiter  Liber  in  contrast  to  Jupiter 
Lucetius,  Jupiter  Terminus,  and  so  on.     As  the  epithets  became 


DEIFIED  ABSTRACTS  AS  A  CLASS  6 1 

the  distinguishing  feature  and  the  real  basis  of  the  worship,  the 
qualities  expressed  by  them  assumed  a  growing  importance,  so 
that  they  overshadowed  the  deities  to  whom  they  were  applied, 
became  independent,  and  finally  lost  all  connection  with  the  simple 
concrete  objects  of  worship. 

This  theory  may  be  seen  in  perhaps  its  most  extreme  form  in 
Marquardt  Romische  Staatsverwaltung  IIP,  pp.  19  f.  In  giving  an 
explanation  of  the  vast  numbers  of  apparently  independent  special 
deities  of  the  Indigitamenta,  he  says  (p.  20)  : 

Es  traten  aber  noch  drei  verschiedene  Griinde  hinzu,  welche  die  Tren- 
nung  der  urspriinglich  in  geringer  Anzahl  vorhandenen  gottlichen  Wesen  ins 

Unbegrenzte  hin  und  das  Unklarwerden  der  alten  Gottheiten  bewirkten 

Zweitens  waren  die  Qualitatsbestimmungen  der  Indigitamenta  nicht  formell 
erkennbare  Epitheta,  welche  unmittelbar  das  Bewusstsein  batten  erhalten 
miissen,  dass  sie  einem  bestimmten  Gotte  angehorten,  sondern  grossentheils 
Nomina  selbstandiger  Form  und  Bedeutung,  die,  wie  wir  bereits  bemerkten, 
sich  auch  der  geschlechtlichen  Form  nach  nicht  immer  dem  eigentlichen 
Namen  des  Gottes  anschlossen,  woraus  allein  die  an  sich  auffallende 
Erscheinung  sich  erklart,  dass  die  Romer  eine  Menge  von  Abstraktionen 
unter  ihren  Gottheiten  haben,  deren  reale  Verehrung  als  personliche  Wesen 
uns  schwer  begreiflich  ist,  wie  Aequitas  Aeternitas  ....  und  viele  andere. 
Es  gab  einen  lupiter  Libertas,  einen  lupiter  Inventus,  einen  lupiter  Fulgur, 
einen  lupiter  Pecunia,  einen  lupiter  Lapis  ....  so  dass  wenigstens  bei 
altern  Abstraktionen  dieser  Art,  Febris  Fides,  Terminus,  Pax  und  andern 
ebenfalls  eine  Zusammengehorigkeit  mit  personlichen  Gottheiten  anzunehmen 
gerechtfertigt  sein  diirfte. 

The  position  of  Preller  is  not  certain.  He  classified  our 
abstracts  (op.  cit.  IP,  p.  178)  as  owing  their  cults  more  to  abstrac- 
tion and  to  demonic  belief  than  to  the  older  polytheism  of  nature- 
worship.  However,  in  the  spirits  of  the  Indigitamenta  of  the 
earliest  period  he  recognized  "reflection"  and  "abstraction"  as  the 
genesis.  On  the  other  hand,  as  we  have  seen  above  (e.  g.,  under 
Concordia),  he  derived  many  of  our  abstract  deifications  from  the 
more  personal  gods  and  goddesses. 

,  In  the  latest  complete  work  on  Roman  religion,  the  exceedingly 
accurate  and  careful  book  by  Wissowa,  Religion  und  Kultus  der 
Romer,  so  often  refered  to  above,  that  eminent  scholar  has  taken  up 
and  reinforced  the  doctrine  of  the  separation  of  our  deities  from 
parent  gods,  without  stating  the  theory  so  broadly  and  absolutely 
as  Marquardt.     He  cannot  see  the  slightest  trace  in  the  earliest 


62        DEIFICATION  OF  ABSTRACT  IDEAS  IN  ROMAN  LITERATURE 

Stage  either  of  the  deification  of  powers  of  nature  or  of  the 
embodiment  of  ethical  ideas.    On  p.  20  he  says: 

Ebensowenig  aber  sind  es  ethische  Ideen,  die  in  den  Gottem  verkorpert 
sind:  die  grosse  Zahl  von  Abstraktionen,  von  gottlich  personifizierten  Eigen- 
schaften,  die  wir  in  spateren  Perioden  der  religiosen  Entwicklung  in  Rom 
antreffen  und  als  characterisch  fiir  die  romische  Denkweise  anzunehmen 
gewohnt  sind,  fehlt  hier  noch  vollstandig. 

Cf.  Gesam.  AbhandL,  p.  304.  He  thinks  that  in  the  fact  that  many 
epithets  became  detached  from  and  independent  of  the  names  of  the 
originally  few  principal  deities,  and  that  such  deities  as  Jupiter  Victor 
and  Victoria  (p.  48),  Mars  and  Bellona,  stood  side  by  side,  the  per- 
sonal patrons  of  victory  and  war  on  the  one  side,  and  the  representa- 
tives of  the  quality  or  property  itself  on  the  other,  is  to  be  seen  the 
starting-point  of  the  free  deification  of  virfutes  and  utilitates  which 
rapidly  followed — of  Concordia,  Spes,  Pudicitia,  Pietas,  for  example. 
See  also  Carter  De  deor.  Rom.  cogn.,  p.  34. 

These  quotations  suffice  to  outline  the  second  theory  indicated 
above.  It  denies  to  the  earliest  Romans  the  power  or  tendency 
to  spiritualize  or  hypostatize  a  purely  mental  concept.  Whereas 
Mommsen  made  Jupiter  an  elevated  conception  of  manhood,  to 
Wissowa  he  is  nothing  but  the  sky-god,?and  the  religious  ideas  of  that 
period  reflect  the  interests  of  a  community  engaged  in  agriculture 
and  stock-raising,  in  hard  work  and  endless  battles  {R.-K.,  p.  20). 
Hence  qualities,  states,  and  other  like  ideas  belong  to  a  later  date 
and  are  a  later  development. 

My  own  conviction  is  that  the  truth  is  midway  between  these 
two  opposing  theories.  It  may  be  granted  at  the  outset  that  the 
earliest  stage  of  the  Romans  was  that  of  an  agricultural  people, 
often  in  conflict  with  neighboring  tribes,  and  that  therefore  any 
elevated  ethical  concept  would  not  be  expected  of  them  and  is  not 
discernible  in  our  earliest  records.  This,  however,  is  not  to  say  that 
they  had  only  the  power  or  habit  of  spiritualizing  the  purely  con- 
crete and  visible  object  or  act.  To  do  so  would  be  to  deny  them  the 
power  of  thought.2^     The  sources  for  the  history  of  the  ancient 

^On  the  contrary,  Professor  M.  Bloomfield  says:  "They  [i.e.,  symbolic 
deities]  are  primitive,  and  the  state  of  mind  needed  to  form  them  is  absolutely 
that  of  the  natural  man.     They  are  not  'secondary,'  for  they  are  as  common  in 

Homer,    Hesiod,   the   Vedas,    as    in    modern    poets Any    quality,    however 

abtract  it  may  seem  to  us,  presents  itself  to  natural  man  as  something  solipsistic  ; 
ft  is  a  thing  per  se."     He  cites  parallels  from   Sanskrit  literature    (Studies  in 


DEIFIED  ABSTRACTS  AS  A  CLASS  63 

times,  fragmentary  as  they  are,  indicate  to  some  extent  that  they  did 
thus  deify  thoughts.  It  is  true  that  in  our  surest  and  most  authen- 
tic record  of  the  past,  the  list  of  festivals  on  the  ancient  stone- 
calendars,  we  see  for  the  most  part  nothing  but  material  objects 
deified.  But  even  here  there  is  a  goddess  Ops,  who  represents  a 
quality  or  condition  wished  for,  restricted,  however,  to  a  particular 
sphere.  For  ops  does  not  mean  "harvest"  or  "grain,"  but  the  "ful- 
ness" or  "abundance  of  grain."^*  (Cf.  Lat.  Etym.  Worterh.,  ed. 
A.  Walde,  Lieferung  6.) 

It  is  unfortunate  for  our  correct  conception  of  this  early  stage 
of  religion  that  the  tradition  of  the  Indigitamenta  has  been  so 
indirect  that  it  is  a  matter  of  great  doubt,  first,  whether  the  "minuti 
dei"  therein  contained  were  really  independent  gods  or  epithets  to 
be  used  in  addressing  the  great  gods ;  and,  second,  whether  any  of 
them  actually  belonged  to  the  earliest  period.  They  cannot  be  used 
as  evidence  for  the  origin  of  the  deities  under  discussion,  but  in  pass- 
ing we  may  note  that  several  of  them  contain  the  germs  of 
abstraction  of  quality,  condition,  or  virtue,  though  restricted  to 
single  spheres  of  the  life  of  children  or  married  persons  (cf.  p.  45). 

But  there  is  more  positive  evidence  of  the  tendency  to  deify 
mental  concepts  in  the  earliest  period  when  the  Romans  were 
farmers  only,  even  if  it  is  circumscribed  in  sphere,  for  Varro  {De 
re  rustica  i.  i.  6)  says  among  illos  duodecim  deos,  qui  maxime  agri- 
colarum  duces  sunt,  he  prays  to  Lympham  ac  Bonum  Eventum, 
quoniam  sine  aqua  omnis  arida  ac  misera  agricultura,  sine  successu 
ac  bono  eventu  frustratio  est.  (Cf.  Wissowa  under  Bonus  Eventus 
in  Roscher.)  Evidently  bono  eventu  completes  and  fills  out  the 
abstract  successu.  The  age  of  this  god  is  attested  by  the  others  in 
the  list  that  are  represented  by  festivals  on  the  calendars  or  are 
otherwise  known  to  be  ancient.^^ 

Honor  of  Gildersleeve,  pp.  37  ff.,  especially  pp.  41  f.).  For  similar  abstract  con- 
ceptions among  North  American  Indians  and  Polynesians,  see  the  Monist  XVI, 
3  (July,  1906),  pp.  357  ff.,  "The  Fundamental  Concept  of  Primitive  Philosophy," 
by  A.  O.  Lovejoy. 

^  Copia  is  co-opia,  not  materially  different  from  ops ;  fructus  would  be  the 
natural  word  for  "crops,"  if  that  were  the  fundamental  idea  personified.  In 
Roscher  III,  p.  931,  Wissowa  himself  says:  "Sie  [Ops]  ist  eine  Verkorpferung 
der  reichen  Fiille  des  Erntesegens  und  darum  im  Kulte  mit  dem  Erntegotte 
Consus  verbunden." 

^  Domaszewski  {West.  Zeitsch.  XXIV,  n.  16)  thinks  this  circle  of  deities  is 
an  invention  of  Varro.     It  is  possible  that  the  formation  of  a  circle  of  these 


64       DEIFICATION  OF  ABSTRACT  IDEAS  IN  ROMAN  LITERATURE 

We  have  seen  that  the  direct  evidence,  incomplete  as  it  is,  tends 
to  show  that  as  far  back  as  the  agricultural  stage  of  the  Romans 
they  deified  res  expetendae.  This  conclusion,  it  seems  to  me,  is 
strongly  supported  by  the  same  tendency  seen  in  outside  neighbor- 
ing peoples.  The  Sabines  worshiped  a  goddess  of  welfare,  Salus, 
and  possibly  one  of  victory  in  Vacuna;  the  Umbrian  town  of 
Ocriculum  had  a  cult  of  Valentia;  and  the  Latins  themselves,  of 
whom  the  Romans  were  but  a  hill-tribe,  worshiped  Fors  Fortuna, 
who  came  into  the  Roman  religion  in  prehistoric  times.  Further- 
more, the  most  ancient  private  Latin  inscriptions  on  cups,  mirrors, 
and  the  like,  dating  at  least  from  350-200  b.  c,  show  a  number 
of  independent  abstracts — e.g.,  Aecetiai  pocolom  (L  43),  Fortunai 
(L  49),  Fide  (XL  6291),  Salute  (XL  6295) — which  point  to  an 
old  and  well-established  habit  of  giving  presents  to  these 
abstractions. 

The  natural  interpretation,  it  seems  to  me,  to  place  upon  these 
facts  is  that  the  habit  of  personifying  and  deifying  a  quality  or 
condition  independently  of  other  gods  was  inherent  in  the  Roman 
character.  On  the  other  hand,  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  some  of 
our  abstracts — e.  g.,  luventas,  Libertas,  perhaps  Fides — were 
derived  from  epithets  by  which  the  major  deities  were  called,  but  it 
is  by  no  means  sure  that  in  these  cases  we  may  see  the  entire  cause, 
as  Marquardt  believed,  nor  the  starting-point,  as  Wissowa  appears 
to  think,  for  this  style  of  deification.  It  is,  however,  so  sure  and 
convincing  a  cause  in  a  few  instances  that  it  has  been  seized  upon  as 
a  satisfactory  explanation  for  them  all,  and  nearly  all  the  writers 
on  the  subject  apparently  go  on  the  principle:  Given  a  deified 
appellative,  find  its  original  personal  or  concrete  parent.  Conse- 
quently, the  most  trivial  and  insignificant  details  have  been  magni- 
fied to  find  a  nexus  for  almost  every  abstract  with  one  of  the  twelve 
gods.  The  extent  to  which  this  "split-ofif"  theory  has  gone  is  well 
illustrated  by  the  attempt  of  Amatucci  {Riv.  di.  stor.  ant.  N.  S.  VII, 
p.  26)  to  derive  Pietas  from  Aeneas,  the  Pater  Indiges.  If,  he 
argues,  as  Preller  thinks.  Fides  came  from  Jupiter,  Concordia  from 
Venus,  Pudicitia  from  Juno,  and  Mens  from  Fortuna,  Pietas  may 
well  come  from  pius  Aeneas.  But  the  attempt  to  see  in  Spes  a  con- 
gods  with  a  fixed  number  and  in  pairs  was  a  literary  device  of  the  author,  but 
without  doubt  the  deities  he  cited  were  generally  recognized  as  those  most 
worshiped  by  the  farmers.  Otherwise  his  invocation  would  have  lost  greatly  in 
effectiveness. 


DEIFIED  ABSTRACTS  AS  A  CLASS  65 

nection  with  Venus  and  to  limit  her  in  origin  to  the  department 
of  agriculture  from  a  line  of  TibuUus  is  almost  as  striking.  (See 
above,  p.  18;  Preller  II,  p.  253.) 

This  theory  has  been  used  too  freely  in  many  cases,  and  even 
in  some  instances  regarded  as  most  certain  there  is  room  for  doubt. 
The  connection  between  Jupiter  and  Fides,  for  example,  commonly 
considered  a  typical  illustration,  rests  upon  the  participation  of  the 
three  chief  and  oldest  flamens  (see  above,  p.  20)  annually  in 
her  worship.  But  this  may  demonstrate  only  the  importance  of  the 
cult,  /it  can  well  be  imagined  that  the  idea  of  the  political  faith  of  . 
the  state  was  so  important  and  so  carefully  guarded  that  the  chief  j/ 
religious  magistrates  of  the  state  should  be  in  charge  of  ]t;  As  to 
the  proximity  of  her  temple  to  that  of  Zeus,  other  temples  were 
also  adjacent,  and  the  prestige  of  the  goddess  may  have  controlled 
the  choice  of  its  site  on  the  Capitoline,  quite  apart  from  any  idea  of 
an  organic  connection  with  the  cult  of  the  great  god  of  the  sky.  As 
to  the  ancient  cult  of  Dius  Fidius  on  the  Quirinal  (466  B.C.),  the 
natalis  of  this  temple  was  on  June  5 — a  day  not  sacred  to  Jupiter, 
as  far  as  we  can  determine.  Moreover,  plastic  art  represented  him 
after  the  archaic  type  of  Apollo  (Wissowa  R.-K.,  p.  122),  whereas 
we  should  expect  the  type  of  Zevs  iricrriw  or  Zevs  o/jkios. 

This  leads  to  a  consideration  of  the  value  of  the  various  evi- 
dences for  an  original  connection.  The  oldest  and  most  certain  evi- 
dence is  the  similarity  in  the  dates  of  festivals,  temple  foundations, 
and  annual  offerings.  As  all  the  Ides  were  consecrated  to  Jupiter,  : 
and  all  the  Kalends  to  Juno,  there  is  ground  for  belief  in  some  rela- 
tionship between  a  deity  and  one  of  these  gods,  if  a  natalis  of  its 
temple  falls  on  the  days  sacred  to  Jupiter  or  Juno.  Yet  the  validity 
of  this  proof  is  diminished  by  the  fact  that  some  temples  on  being 
restored  were  given  a  different  natalis.  Furthermore,  sometimes  it 
is  mere  coincidence.  We  are  not  to  think  of  a  connection  in  cult 
between  Juno  Moneta  and  the  Tempestates  because  their  anni- 
versaries were  both  June  i.  Nor  was  there  any  connection  between 
Venus  and  the  rustic  festival  of  Vinalia,  though  both  were  cele- 
brated on  August  19,  or  between  Jupiter  and  Honos  et  Virtus 
because  the  former's  feriae  and  the  latter's  natalis  fell  on  the 
Ides  of  July. 

The  case  is  similar  with  contemporaneous  reception  into  the 
state-cult.  The  founding  of  two  temples  on  the  same  day  of  the 
same  year  may  show  some  bond  between  the  two  cults,  but  not 


66        DEIFICATION  OF  ABSTRACT  IDEAS  IN  ROMAN  LITERATURE 

necessarily  a  vital  one.  Compare  the  founding  of  Mens  and  Venus 
Erycina  on  the  Capitol  on  the  same  date.  Proximity  in  space 
affords  some  sign  of  a  nexus,  but  it  is  dangerous  to  use ;  for  while 
two  shrines  or  temples  closely  united  indicate  similarities  and  rela- 
tionships in  the  minds  of  the  founders,  it  is  always  possible  that 
considerations  of  the  best  site,  the  best  appearance,  and  the  exigen- 
cies of  ground,  convenience,  and  so  forth,  which  often  determine 
the  location  of  temples,  would  throw  two  wholly  unrelated  cults 
into  close  proximity.  Even  in  the  early  period  of  Rome  it  would 
have  been  natural  to  crowd  temples  and  shrines  upon  the  Capitoline 
as  an  imposing  site,  and  to  group  them  together  for  convenience. 
So  on  the  sam.e  height  with  Jupiter  Optimus  Maximus  dwelt 
Fides  (254),  Ops  (293-218?),  Mens,  Venus  Erycina,  and  others. 
It  would  be  absurd  to  infer  that,  because  the  temple  of  Pietas  was 
built  in  the  Forum  Holitorium,  therefore  she  was  a  deity  of  the 
garden  and  an  offshoot  from  Venus,  the  garden-goddess. 

Other  evidence  consists  in  similarity  of  ritual  and  collocation 
in  sacred  formulae  (which,  however,  is  almost  entirely  lacking 
in  the  case  of  deified  abstracts),  inscriptional  juxtapositions,  and 
peculiarities  of  representation  on  statues,  bas-reliefs,  and  coins, 
which  latter  group  is  extensive,  but  often  quite  doubtful. 

The  considerations  suggested  suffice  to  show  the  extreme  difficulty 
in  using  evidence  so  untrustworthy  and  inadequate.  Only  an  accu- 
mulation of  considerations  deduced  from  these  different  fields  is 
sufficient  to  associate  one  deification  with  another,  or  with  a  special 
phase  of  activity  and  life;  and  even  then  great  probability  only  is 
attained.  It  is  therefore  better  in  a  majority  of  cases  to  shrink 
from  any  close  identification.  For  it  is  not  necessary  to  prove,  or 
even  to  assume,  that  one  abstract  deity  was  an  offshoot  of  another  ; 
on  the  contrary,  it  should  not  be  admitted  except  on  strong  evi- 
dence, for  the  deification  of  virtues  and  ethical  conceptions  is 
simply  a  developed  stage  of  the  religious  bent  of  the  earliest 
Roman.  Granted  that  he  was  a  polytheist  or  polydaemonist,  it  fol- 
lows that  there  were  beyond  all  doubt  relations,  situations,  and 
utilities  as  omnipresent  and  desirable  as  the  tangible  objects  about 
him.  Victory  in  battle,  success  of  his  crops,  abundance  of  harvested 
produce,  and  some  other  simple  ideas  are  as  naturally  hypostatized 
and  worshiped  for  their  beneficient  assistance,  as  war  (Bellona) 
itself,  the  fountain  (Fons),  or  the  harbor  (Portunus).  To  posit  a 
stage  when  they  could  only  spiritualize  visible  concrete  objects  (cf. 


DEIFIED  ABSTRACTS  AS  A  CLASS  67 

Wissowa  Gesam.  AbhandL,  p.  326)  is  to  deny  any  mental  activity 
and  to  go  far  back  into  a  prehistoric  stage  of  evolution.  To  be 
sure,  the  primitive  Roman  citizen  had  simple  conceptions  for  his 
gods,  and  they  were  related  closely  to  the  activities  of  life  and 
nature  with  which  he  was  familiar — a  characteristic  feature  of 
their  entire  history.  But,  as  the  nation  grew  in  size  and  political 
power,  their  deified  concepts  grew  broader,  though  always  with 
a  utilitarian  tendency. 

In  short,  I  hold,  first,  that  the  tendency  to  deify  purely  mental 
concepts — that  is,  to  consider  them  external  supernatural  forces, 
to  make  numina  of  them — was  indigenous  to  the  native  Romans, 
restricted  it  is  true,  but  nevertheless  existing,  and  possessed  by  them 
in  common  with  the  other  Italic  peoples  and  by  the  Greeks  as  well, 
as  a  heritage  from  the  Indo-Germanic  stock — a  tendency  which  the 
Greeks,  with  livelier  imaginative  powers,  carried  farther  by  incor- 
porating their  concepts  in  human  personal  form ;  secondly,  that  the 
process  of  differentiation  from  an  earlier  deity  accounted,  like  i 
foreign  influence,  for  the  existence  of  several  deities,  but  that  it  is 
unnecessary  to  assume  it  as  the  origin  of  the  whole  class  of  deified 
abstracts  or  for  many  of  them.  It  simply  acted  as  an  additional 
impulse  toward  the  spread  of  that  type  of  deification. 

II.  THE  DEIFIED  ABSTRACTS  IN  LITERATURE 
We  come  now  to  a  second  question,  namely,  the  importance  and 
place  of  our  class  of  divinities  in  the  Roman  religion  and  the  atti- 
tude of  the  people  toward  them.  As  this  attitude  would  likely 
vary  with  different  periods  of  the  state,  it  is  necessary  to  examine 
historically  as  far  as  possible  the  various  kinds  of  literary  and 
inscriptional  evidence.  Since  the  former  is  the  more  direct  testi- 
mony, we  may  review  it  first;  but  it  must  be  dealt  with  cautiously, 
for  it  is  very  uneven.  Serious  descriptive  or  didactic  prose  may  be 
received  as  positive  opinion,  but  the  credibility  of  poetry  and 
imaginative  and  rhetorical  prose  is  very  insecure,  since  usually  fact 
and  fiction  are  confused  and  blended.  A  common  abstract  noun 
is  often  confused  with  personification,  and  personification  with 
deification,  as  the  boundaries  between  these  theoretically  distinct 
provinces  are  slight  and  vague.  It  is  impossible  to  give  an  all-  J^ 
inclusive,  all-exclusive  definition  of  personification,  because  it  is 
impossible  to  define  personality.  There  is  a  large  number  of  verbs, 
adjectives,  and  other  words  applicable  both  to  persons  and  things, 


68        DEIFICATION  OF  ABSTRACT  IDEAS  IN  ROMAN  LITERATURE 

and  so  loosely  are  some  of  our  most  common  terms  employed  that 
we  could  scarcely  find  agreement  between  any  two  authorities  on  a 
list  of  words  applicable  to  a  quality,  but  not  to  a  person.  Witness 
the  common  variation  in  different  texts  in  the  use  of  capitals  in 
passages  containing  abstracts.  What  is  vivid  imagination  to  one 
person  is  a  mere  common  noun  to  another.  Should  the  nouns  in 
the  following  sententia  by  Publilius  Syrus  (Ribbeck  Fragmenta 
II.  I.  641,  646,  647)  be  capitalized:^^  virtuti  melius  quam  fortunae 
creditur  ? 

The  step  from  personification  to  deification  is  equally  short. 
As  has  been  noticed  above,  since  deification  is  simply  the  reverence 
of  certain  rare  and  important  qualities  as  external  forces,  much 
like  the  "ideas"  of  Plato,  the  cycle  of  the  deified  qualities  will  vary 
^'  "with  different  minds.  All  deifications,  too,  are  personifications,  but 
the  reverse  statement  is  not  true.  It  is,  therefore,  impossible  dog- 
matically to  determine  whether  a  personified  abstraction  is  also  a 
deity  in  the  author's  mind.  When  Horace  (Carm.  i.  35)  invoked 
Fortuna,  the  actual  goddess  of  Antium,  thus,  O  diva  gratum,  quae 
regis  Antium,  how  did  he  conceive  of  Necessitas,  personified  as 
highly  as  Fortuna  and  placed  in  her  train  with  Spes  and  Fides, 
recognized  deities?  Was  he  not  conscious  that  Necessitas  was  not 
regarded  as  a  goddess  by  the  state  or  people?  Did  he  not  perceive 
the  incongruity  in  placing  a  mere  concept  of  the  imagination  in 
close  relation  with  an  actual  deity,  or  did  he  really  consider  Necessi- 
tas divine?  We  cannot  say.  But  for  purposes  of  discrimination 
it  is  safer  to  assume,  when  known  deities  and  otherwise  unauthenti- 
cated  deities  are  mentioned  together  in  highly  imaginative  passages, 
that  the  former  are  lowered  to  rhetorical  lay-figures  rather  than 
that  the  latter  are  exalted  to  actual  celestial  beings.^^  As  for  single 
personifications  not  in  the  company  of  true  gods,  we  may  disregard 
them  altogether. 2® 

"  Cf.  Martial  xii.  6.  3 :  recta  Fides,  hilaris  Clementia,  cauta  Potestas,  which 
names  are  indexed  by  Friedlander  as  goddesses,  but  are  not  even  capitalized  by 
Gilbert. 

"  The  most  impressive  illustration  of  a  false  deification  originating  from  a 
poetical  personification  is  the  case  of  Pavor  and  Pallor,  which  deceived  Livy  or 
his  sources.     See  above. 

"  Cf.  R.  Engelhard  De  personiUcationihus,  quae  in  poesi  atque  arte  romano- 
rum  inveniuntur  (Gottingen,  1881),  for  a  very  complete  collection.  He  fails, 
however,   to    draw   any    distinction    between    fact   and    fancy.      L»    Deubuer,    in 


DEIFIED  ABSTRACTS  AS  A  CLASS  69 

Keeping  in  mind  these  principles  and  the  relative  values  of  our 
literary  evidence,  we  may  proceed  with  our  examination;  while 
we  cannot  determine  the  actual  belief  of  an  author  in  individual 
cases,  an  idea  of  his  general  attitude  toward  this  class  may  often  be 
gained,  as  well  as  of  the  feeling  of  his  time. 

A.       LITERATURE    OF    THE    REPUBLIC 

We  have  practically  no  references  from  literature  of  the  third 
century  b.  c.  apart  from  Plautus,  except  perhaps  the  fragment  from 
Ennius:  "O  Fides  alma  apta  pinnis  ac  ius  iurandum  lovis."  (Cic. 
De  off.  iii.  29.  104;  Ribbeck  op.  cit.,  Enn.  37.  380.)  This  is  doubtless 
due  to  its  fragmentary  condition,  for  in  the  writings  of  Plautus  we 
see  allusions  and  direct  references  to  our  cults  in  considerable 
quantity.  It  is  difficult,  however,  to  determine  how  far  he  is  copy- 
ing his  Greek  original  and  how  far  he  is  inserting  distinctively 
Roman  ideas.  (Cf.  the  discussion  on  Fides  in  Hiibrich  op.  cit., 
pp.  33  f . ;  also  the  citation  of  Libertas  in  Rudens  490,  which  should 
be  read  cum  Hercule  instead  of  mecum  hercle,  is  itself  probably  a 
Greek  tale;  cf.  Ussing  ad  loc.) 

Yet  the  poet  lived  in  a  period  when  the  canonization  of  appella- 
tives by  the  state  officials  was  very  common,  and  it  can  be  shown 
that  nowhere  does  he  clearly  represent  a  purely  Greek  conception  as 
a  Roman  divinity.  Before  his  time  Fortuna,  Concordia,  Salus,  Vic- 
toria, Spes,  Fides,  and  probably  Ops  and  Libertas,  had  been 
enshrined;  during  his  life  Mens,  Honos,  Virtus,  luventas,  and 
perhaps  Pietas,  were  created,  while  other  temples  were  added  to 
those  already  existing.^^ 

This  busy  period  of  consecration  is  reflected  in  his  plays.  They 
frequently  repeat  the  names  of  the  goddesses  mentioned  above 
(except  Concordia  and  luventas),  especially  Fortuna,  Salus,  and 
Spes,  who  became  proverbial  and  evidently  were  popular  cults  among 
the  people.  Note  such  phrases  as  Capt,  529,  Neque  iam  Salus  ser- 
vare,  si  volt,  me  potest;  Most.  351,  Nee  Salus  nobis  saluti  iam  esse, 
si  cupiat,  potest;  Cist.  742,  At  vos  Salus  servassit  (cf.  Ter.  Adelp. 
761)  ;  Rud.  231,  Spes  bona,  obsecro,  subventa  mihi;  ibid.  247,  obse- 
cro,  amplectere,  Spes  mea;  Cist.  670,  Spes  mihi  sancta  subveni; 

Roscher  IV.  2068  flf.,  has  an  excellent  treatment  of  personification  and  also  a  full 
list  of  the  examples  in  both  Greek  and  Latin  literature. 

®  Hubrich,  p.  108,  is  wrong  in  personifying  pax  in  Trin.  837.  The  usually 
accepted  reading  is  tua  pax. 


70        DEIFICATION  OF  ABSTRACT  IDEAS  IN  ROMAN  LITERATURE 

Capt.  304,  Fortuna  humana  fingit  artatque  ut  lubet.  These  occa- 
sional lines  indicate  that  the  abstract  cults  were  prominent  factors 
in  the  period  of  Plautus,  but  we  find  also  in  his  comedies  touches  of 
skeptical  but  kindly  fun  at  their  expense.  That  he  was  conscious 
of  their  artificiality  seems  apparent  from  the  manner  in  which  he 
plays  upon  their  appellative  use ;  e.  g. :  Cist.  644,  O  Salute  mea  salus 
salubrior;  Rud.  501,  Malam  Fortunam  in  aedis  te  adduxi  meas; 
Aul.  100,  Si  Bona  Fortuna  veniat,  ne  intromiseris  (Staphyla)  Pol 
ea  ipsa  credo  intromittatur  cavet,  Nam  ad  aedis  nostras  nusquam 
adiit  quaquam  prope. 

Examples  of  light  and  familiar  treatment  of  these  gods  fre- 
quently occur,  when,  for  instance,  a  character  who  proves  of  great 
assistance  is  called  Spes,  Salus,  or  Victoria,  without  regard  to  sex; 
thus  Merc.  866:  qui  me  revocat?  (Eu.)  Spes,  Salus,  Victoria; 
Pseud.  709:  Die  utrum  Spemne  an  Salutem  te  salutem,  Pseudole. 
In  the  Asinaria  (712  ff.)  two  slaves,  Libanus  and  Leonida,  are 
represented  as  the  goddesses  Salus  and  Fortuna  respectively,  vying 
for  honor  from  their  master  Argyrippus.  The  latter  declares  For- 
tuna superior,  but,  on  the  objection  of  Libanus,  the  following  collo- 
quy ensues  (11.  718  ff.):  (Arg.)  licet  laudem  Fortunam,  tamen  ut 
ne  Salutem  culpem.  (Phil.)  ecastor  ambae  sunt  bonae.  (Arg.) 
sciam  ubi  boni  quid  dederint.  A  few  lines  below  (727)  he  says: 
ut  consuere  homines  Salus  frustratur  et  Fortuna.  (Cf.  Rud.  490: 
Edepol,  Libertas,  lepida  es,  though  this  may  be  Greek.)  It  is  true 
that  the  great  gods  too  are  treated  very  lightly,  but  it  is  hardly 
probable  that  Plautus  would  have  gone  to  the  length  of  giving  the 
name  Mars  to  a  woman  or  Minerva  to  a  man.  The  sex  of  their 
personality  was  too  prominent  to  their  worshipers. 

Moreover,  the  abstracts  are  used  very  frequently  for  the  pur- 
pose of  etymological  punning.  Examples  of  this  are  among  the  fore- 
going citations;  others  are  Asin.  506,  Pietatem  piem;  Capt.  392, 
Honore  honestiorem;  Merc.  842,  speratrix  ....  Spem  speratam; 
Cist.  515,  Ops  opulenta;  Aul.  506,  fretus  tua.  Fides,  fiducia.  But 
Plautus  does  not  stop  with  real  gods ;  to  make  the  pun  more  force- 
ful he  invents  a  new  one,  e.  g.,  Asin.  267  f. : 

Ubi  ego  nam  Libanum  requiram  aut  familiarem  filium 
ut  ego  lubentiores  faciam  quam  Lubentiast? 

(Cf.  Naevius,  Ribbeck  op.  cit.  II,  p.  31 :  Fortunam  ipsam  anteibo  for- 
tunis   meis.)      The   point   here   lies   in   the   close   resemblance   of 


DEIFIED  ABSTRACTS  AS  A  CLASS  7 1 

Lubentia  both  to  Libentina  and  Libitina  and  also  to  Plautus'  usual 
treatment  of  the  actual  deities.  It  is  a  subtle  parody  on  them;  as 
an  appellative  or  mere  personification  without  connotation  of  divin- 
ity the  humorous  effect  would  be  greatly  diminished.  Also  Pseud. 
669,  Namque  ipsa  Opportunitas  non  potuit  mi  opportunius  advenire  ; 
Cas.  225,  munditiis  Munditiam  antideo. 

It  seems  as  if  the  playwright  had  in  mind  the  arbitrary  and 
vague  classification  of  such  deities,  and  was  satirizing  the  tendency 
of  the  times  to  create  such  cults  on  the  inspiration  of  a  consul  or 
other  officer.  The  combination,  Salus,  Fortuna,  Lux,  Laetitia, 
Gaudium  {Capt.  864),  is  a  jest  at  these  non-personal  transparent 
gods.     A  more  striking  case,  however,  is  Bacch.  ii4ff. : 

(Ly.)  quis  istic  habet? 

(Pi.)    Amor,   Voluptas   Venu',   Venustas,   Gaudium, 

locu',  Ludus,   Sermo,   Suavisuaviatio. 
(Ly.)  Quid  tibi  commercist  cum  dis  damnosissimis ? 
(Pi.)    Mali  sunt  homines  qui  bonis  dicunt  male. 

tu  dis  nee  recte  dicis:    non  aequom  facis. 
(Ly.)  An  deus  est  ullus  Suavisuaviatio? 
(Pi.)    An  non  putasti  esse  umquam?   O  Lyde,  es  barbarus, 

quem  ego  sapere  nimio  censui  plus  quam  Thalem, 

is  stultior  es  barbaro  Poticio, 

qui  tantus  natu  deorum  nescis  nomina. 

The  picture  of  this  old  religious,  upright  servant  in  doubt  whether 
a  polysyllabic  abstract  word  was  a  god  or  not,  but  not  questioning 
the  others  at  all,  is  a  humorous  reflection  of  Plautus  on  the  limitless 
number  of  abstractions  that  might  in  time  be  made  gods. 

When  the  poet  puts  personifications  on  the  stage  in  the  form  of 
characters,  he  of  course  is  following  the  Greek  custom.  Inopia  and 
Luxuria  (Prolog,  to  Trin.)  are  pure  personifications,  as  the  descrip- 
tion shows.  Auxilium  (Cist.  149 ff.)  is  a  sort  of  burlesque  on  the 
deus  ex  machina.  The  neuter  gender  is  foreign  to  deity,  and  the 
repetition  of  the  deus  in  the  latter  case  seems  sarcastic;  viz.,  satin' 
vix  reliquit  deo  ....  ego  eram  dicturus,  deus. 

In  striking  contrast  to  Plautus,  Terence  practically  disregards 
the  abstracts.  Salus,  by  him  identified  with  Hygieia  and  asso- 
ciated with  Aesculapius,  and  Fors  Fortuna  are  the  only  examples 
mentioned.  Perhaps  one  cause  for  this  silence  lies  in  the  fact  that 
no  new  cults  were  established  during  the  time  of  his  composition, 
yet  mention  of  the  more  important  deities  is  rare,  too. 


72        DEIFICATION  OF  ABSTRACT  IDEAS  IN  ROMAN  LITERATURE 

Of  comedy  elsewhere  only  the  line  (Ribbeck  II.  220),  numquis 
me  quaesiit?  Bona  Fortuna,  concerns  Us,  which  suggests  that 
Afranius  continued  the  device  of  Plautus  of  having  the  characters 
call  themselves  by  the  name  of  some  transparent  deity.  Of  the 
tragic  fragments  also  we  have  but  one  touching  our  subject, 
ascribed  to  Pacuvius  (Ribbeck  XIV.  365-75)  : 

Fortunam  insanam  esse  et  caecam  et  brutam  perhibent  philosophi 

saxoque  instare  in  globoso  praedicant  volubiles. 

Insanam  autem  esse  aiunt  quia  atrox  incerta  instabilisque  sit, 

caecam  ob  eam  rem  esse  iterant  quia  nil  cernat  quo  sese  adplicet; 

brutam  quia  dignum  atque  indignum  nequeat  internoscere ; , 

sunt  autem  alii  philosophi  qui  contra  Fortunam  negant 

esse  ullam  sed  temeritate  res  regi  omnis  autumant. 

Id  magis  veri  simile  esse  usus  reapse  experiundo  edocet 

velut  Orestes  modo  fuit  rex,  factust  mendicus  modo. 

We  have  here  probably  a  poetical  version  of  a  Greek  philosophical 
description. 

The  other  poets  of  the  republic,  save  Catullus,  offer  no  pas- 
sages of  interests  to  us.  But  in  the  lines  of  this  passionate  writer  to 
a  false  friend  (xxx.  11  f.),  Si  tu  oblitus  es,  at  dii  meminerunt, 
meminit  Fides,  Quae  te  ut  paeniteat  postmodo  facti  faciet  tui,  we 
see  his  strong  belief  in  the  punitive  power  of  the  dishonored  god- 
dess of  faith.    Less  serious  is  Ixiv.  169  f.  (cf.  1.  366)  : 

sic  nimis  insultans  extremo  tempore  saeva 
fors  etiam  invidit  questibus  auris 

and  in  Ixvi.  87  there  is  but  slight  personification  of  Concordia. 

With  Varro  we  reach  the  first  direct  evidence  regarding  the 
nature  and  position  of  these  divinities,  thanks  to  the  detailed  criti- 
cisms of  Augustine  on  the  great  scholar's  work  on  the  Roman 
religion.  What  place  did  he  give  to  Fortuna  and  her  kind? 
According  to  his  scheme  of  treatment  by  which  he  divided  the  cults 
into  dii  certi  (book  xiv),  those  whose  cults  were  plain  and  definite, 
dii  incerti  (book  xv),  about  whom  there  were  uncertain  traditions 
and  explanations,  and  dii  selecti  or  praecipui  (book  xvi),  those  who 
needed  special  discussion,  he  placed  the  deified  qualities  in  the  first 
class  together  with  the  specialized  spirits  of  the  Indigitamenta  (R. 
Agahd  Jahrb.  fur  class.  Philol.  1898,  p.  127;  Marquardt-Wissowa 
Staatsverw.  III.  94).  Augustine  explicitly  states  this  of  three  god- 
desses {De  civ.  dei  vii.  3)  : 


DEIFIED  ABSTRACTS  AS  A  CLASS  73 

et  tamen  Minerva  est  inter  selectos  deos;  Mentem  autem  deam  turba  vilis 
operuit  Quid  de  Virtute  dicam?  quid  de  Felicitate?  de  quibus  in  quarto 
libro  plura  iam  diximus,  quas  cum  deas  haberent,  nullum  eis  locum  inter 
selectos  deos  dare  voluerunt  ....  (Agahd  loc,  cit.,  p.  122). 

For  the  others  it  is  supported  from  the  fact  that  Augustine  in  fol- 
lowing Varro's  argument  groups  them  together  in  book  iv.  11  if . 

Varro  took  special  pains  to  show  that  the  abstracts  were 
genuine  deities  and  not  mere  mental  concepts,  and  thus  explains 
their  origin  in  a  passage  preserved  in  Augustine  op.  cit.  iv.  24 : 

Usque  adeone,  inquiunt  [i.  e.,  Varro  inquit ;  cf.  Agahd,  p.  22]  maiores 
nostros  insipientes  fuisse  credendum  est,  ut  haec  nescirent  munera  divina  esse, 
non  deos?  Sed  quoniam  sciebant  nemini  talia  nisi  aliquo  deo  largiente 
concedi,  quorum  deorum  nomina  non  inveniebant,  earum  rerum  nominibus 
appellabant  deos,  quas  ab  eis  sentiebant  dari,  aliquo  vocabula  inde  flectentes 
sicut  a  bello  Bellonam,  nuncupaverunt,  non  Bellum;  sicut  a  cunis  Cuninam, 
non  Cunam ;  sicut  a  segetibus  Segetiam,  non  Segetem ;  sicut  a  pomis  Pomonam, 
non  Pomum;  sicut  a  bobus  Bubonam,  non  Bovem;  aut  certe  nulla  vocabuli 
declinatione  sicut  res  ipsae  nominantur,  ut  Pecunia  dicta  est  dea,  quae  dat 
pecuniam,  non  omnino  pecunia  dea  ipsa  putata  est ;  ita  Virtus,  quae  dat  virtu- 
tem,  Honor,  qui  honorem,  Concordia,  quae  concordiam,  Victoria,  quae  dat 
victoriam.  Ita,  inquiunt,  cum  Felicitas  dea  dicitur,  non  ipsa  quae  datur  sed 
numen  illud  adtenditur,  a  quo  felicitas  datur. 

It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  Varro  differentiated  these  deities  from 
the  great  gods  by  the  transparent  meaning  of  their  names.  They 
belonged  to  an  "apotheose  grammatical,"  to  use  the  happy  phrase 
of  Bouche-Le  Clercq  (Manuel  des  institutes  romaines,  p.  493)  ;  and 
as  Varro  places  none  of  them  under  his  third  class,  dii  selecti 
(praecipui),  not  even  Fortuna,  Victoria,  or  Concordia,  whose  cults 
played  important  parts  in  the  history  of  the  Romans,  they  occupied 
in  his  estimation  a  lower  rank  among  the  celestials.  Gods  like 
Janus,  Jupiter,  Saturn,  Genius,  Mercury,  Apollo,  Mars,  and  the 
others,  were  more  important  because  they  had  varied  functions, 
were  more  personal,  had  certain  semi-historical  biographies  pre- 
served in  literature,  were  not  transparent  in  their  names,  and  were 
considered  by  the  common  people  as  their  great  gods.^** 

~If  Agahd's  words  (p.  129),  "Itaque  hos  deos  praecipue  tractandos  selegit, 
unde  nomen  acceperunt  deorum  selectorum,"  mean  that  the  deities  termed  dii 
selecti ,  were  not  considered  more  important  or  in  a  different  class  from  the 
others,  but  that  they  were  classed  together  merely  for  comprehensive  and 
thoroufijh,  special  treatment,  I  cannot  agree  with  him.     Augustine's  remarks  and 


74       DEIFICATION  OF  ABSTRACT  IDEAS  IN  ROMAN  LITERATURE 

However,  Varro  associated  several  of  our  deities  with  anthro- 
pomorphic gods — e.  g.,  Janus,  Liber,  Saturnus,  Proserpina, 
Minerva,  Mars — in  listing  among  the  Indigitamenta  those  that  had 
a  narrow  specific  function  in  a  special  activity.  Thus  (August, 
ibid.  iv.  ii)  :  ipse  [luppiter]  opem  ferat  nascentibus  excipiendo  eos 
sinu  terrae  et  vocetur  Opis?  ....  ipse  dea  luventas,  quae  post 
praetextam  excipiat  iuvenalis  aetatis  exordia?  (iv.  21)  :  Quid  necesse 
erat  Opi  deae  commendare  nascentes  .  .  .  .  ;  deae  Menti  ut 
bonam  haberent  mentem,  ....  deae  Victoriae  ut  vincerent,  dec 
Honori,  ut  honorarentur  ?  He  gives  the  origin  of  Salus,  Fortuna, 
Fors,  and  Fides  as  Sabine,  and  ascribes  them  to  Titus  Tatius. 

The  great  Roman  antiquarian  also  made  another  classification 
of  the  gods  on  the  basis  of  the  kinds  of  theology  they  indicated; 
viz.,  Tert.  Ad  nat.  ii.  i,  p.  94: 

Triplici  enim  genere  deorum  censum  distinxit:  unum  esse  physicum, 
quod  philosophi  retractant,  aliud  mythicum,  quod  inter  poetas  volutatur, 
tertium  gentile  [civile,  August,   vi.  5]  quod  populi  sibi  quique  adoptaverunt ; 

August,   iv.   27: 

Relatum  est  in  litteras,  doctissimum  pontificem  Scaevolam  disputasse  tria 
genera  tradita  deorum,  unum  a  poetis,  alterum  a  philosophis,  tertium  a 
principibus  civitatis.  Primum'  genus  nugatorium  dicit  esse,  quod  multa  de 
diis  fingantur  indigna;  secundum  non  congruere  civitatibus,  quod  habeat 
aliqua  supervacua,  aliqua  etiam  quae  obsit  populis  nosse. 

Varro  and  Scaevola  would  have  called  the  abstracts  pre-eminently 
the  "civile  genus,"  "a  principibus  civitatis  cultum,"  and  particularly 
adapted  to  the  popular  understanding.  But  in  Varro's  own  religious 
belief  they  occupy  no  different  position  from  the  other  gods.  As  a 
Stoic  he  conceived  of  the  individual  gods  as  parts,  phases,  or  designa- 
tions of  the  one  great  spirit  permeating  the  universe,  and  from  this 
theory  he  explained  such  forms  as  Jupiter  luventas,  Jupiter  Pe- 
cunia,  and  others. 

Cicero,  like  Varro,  groups  the  deified  qualities  apart  from  the 
chief  gods,  and  for  the  same  reason  that  Varro  advanced,  viz., 
that  they  are  named  from  the  thing  itself.  With  him  they  are  a 
third  class  distinct  from  the  celestials  and  demigods.  He  realizes 
that  practically  they  are  only  symbolized  mental  concepts  (De  nat. 
deor.  iii.  24.  61 ;  18.  47),  and  offers  a  hypothesis  for  their  develop- 

his  characterization  of  them  as  praecipui  must  naturally  have  been  called  forth 
by  some  statement  of  Varro  that  they  were  distinct  and  superior  to  the  others. 


^  DEIFIED  ABSTRACTS  AS  A  CLASS  75 

ment,  analogous  to  Varro's  theory,  viz.,  that,  as  in  course  of  time 
the  gifts  of  certain  real  gods  became  named  freely  from  the  gods 
who  gave  them,  such  a  close  identity  of  deity  and  function  was 
formed  that  it  was  easy  to  designate  the  divinity  that  granted  some 
especially  desirable  thing  by  the  name  of  the  thing  itself  {De  nat, 
deor.  ii.  23). 

Quidquid  enim  magnam  utilitatem  generi  afferret  humano,  id  non  sine 
divina  bonitate  erga  homines  fieri  arbitrabantur.  Itaque  turn  illud,  quod  erat 
a  deo  natum,  nomine  ipsius  dei  nuncupabant  ut  cum  fruges  Cererem  appella- 
mus,  vinum  autem  Liberum:  ex  quo  illud  Terenti  "Sine  Cerere  et  Libero 
f  riget  Venus."  Turn  autem  res  ipsa,  in  qua  vis  inest  maior  aliqua  sic  appellatur, 
ut  ea  ipsa  vis  nominetur  deus,  ut  Fides,  ut  Mens,  quas  in  Capitolio  dedicatas 
videmus  proxime  a  M.  Aemilio  Scauro;  ante  autem  ab  Atilio  Calatino  erat 
Fides  consecrata.     Vides  Virtutis  templum,  vides   Honoris  a  M.   Marcello 

renovatum Quid    Opis?    quid    Salutis?    quid    Concordiae?    Libertatis? 

Victoriae?  quarum  omnium  rerum,  quia  vis  erat  tanta  ut  sine  deo  regi  non 
posset,  ipsa  res  deorum  nomen  obtinuit. 

He  feels,  however,  that  such  deification  went  much  too  far,  and 
even  vices  were  considered  divine,  such  as  Cupido,  Voluptas,  and 
Lubentina  Venus  (loc.  cit.).  Even  Fortuna  is  ever  inseparable 
from  inconstancy  and  temerity,  which  are  qualities  unworthy  of  a 
divine  being  (op.  cit.  iii.  24.  61).  Such  notions  should  never  be 
given  cults  {De  legg.  ii.  19,  earumque  laudum  delubra  sunto  neve  ulla 
vitiorum;  ii.  28,  usque  vetusta  in  Palatio  Febris  et  altera  Esquiliis 
Malae  Fortunae  detestanda  atque  omnia  eius  modi  repudianda 
sunt;  cf.  De.  nat.  deor.  iii.  25.  63). 

Furthermore,  our  author  divides  the  abstracts  into  virtues  (De 
legg.  ii.  28)  and  desirable  conditions  (res  expetendae,  ibid.;  optan- 
dae,  De  nat.  deor.  iii.  61 )  ;  and,  while  there  is  no  essential  difference 
in  the  worship  of  these,  as  Wissowa  has  pointed  out  (R.-K., 
p.  271),  yet  Cicero  seems  to  show  a  greater  appreciation  of  the 
virtues.  At  any  rate,  it  is  striking  that  in  his  ideal  laws  enumerat- 
ing the  classes  of  gods  he  includes  the  virtues  explicitly,  but  leaves 
out  the  desirable  conditions:  .  .  .  .  ast  olla,  propter  quae  datur 
adscensus  in  caelum,  Mentem,  Virtutem,  Pietatem,  Fidem  (De  legg. 
ii.  19).  Compare  the  distinction  (De  nat.  iii.  88)  :  Quamvis  licet 
Menti  delubra  et  Virtuti  et  Fidei  consecremus,  tamen  haec  in  nobis 
ipsis  sita  videmus,  Spei,  Salutis,  Opis,  Victoriae,  facultas  a  dis 
expetenda  est.  Mens  and  Fides  seem  particularly  favorite  cults  of 
Cicero,  to  judge  from  the  frequency  with  which  they  are  mentioned 


76        DEIFICATION  OF  ABSTRACT  IDEAS  IN  ROMAN  LITERATURE 

in  his  allusions  to  the  abstracts,  and  their  usual  position  of  first  or 
second  in  the  list  (cf.  De  nat.  iii.  47,  61 ;  ii.  79). 

But  while  Cicero  gave  a  place  to  these  deities  in  his  religious 
system,  yet  he  had  no  clear  conception  of  their  personality  and 
thought  of  them  as  little  more  than  notions.  This  attitude  is 
betrayed  by  the  fact  that,  whereas  he  speaks  {De  legg.  ii.  19)  of  the 
gods  and  heroes  collectively  in  the  masculine  gender,  he  refers  to 
the  feminine  deities,  Mens,  etc.,  by  the  neuter  plural,  viz.,  olla, 
propter  quae  datur  adscensus  in  caelum.  Morover,  like  the  early 
poets,  he  plays  on  the  duality  of  appellation  and  deity ;  e.  g.,  De  div. 
i.  41.  87,  nusquam  se  fortunatiorem  quam  Praeneste  vidisse  For- 
tunam;  In  Verr.  iii.  131,  quo  ex  iudicio  te  ulla  Salus  servare  posset. 
See  also  Cotta's  remarks  {De  nat.  deor.  iii.  61)  :  quarum  rerum 
utilitatem  video,  video  etiam  consecrata  simulcra ;  quare  autem  in  iis 
vis  deorum  insit  tum  intellegam  cum  cognovero. 

Only  two  more  references  in  the  republican  literature  need 
detain  us.  They  are  illustrative  of  a  skeptical  attitude  toward  our 
deities.  Laberius  on  the  occasion  of  his  public  disgrace  composed 
a  pathetic  apostrophe  to  Fortuna,  immoderata  in  bono  aeque  atque 
in  malo  (Ribbeck  II,  11.  113  if.),  and  among  the  sententiae  of  his 
rival  PuBLiLius  is  one  which  may  allude  to  the  passage  from  Laber- 
ius: ex  hominum  questu  facta  Fortuna  est  dea  (Ribbeck  II,  1.  153). 

B.       LITERATURE    OF    THE    EARLY    EMPIRE 

In  the  literature  of  the  Augustan  age  we  have  no  discussion  of 
the  symbolic  gods;  nevertheless,  we  meet  with  significant  allusions 
to  them  now  and  then.  Those  from  Tibullus  are  colorless,  yet 
they  seem  to  show  a  true  faith  in  our  deities ;  e.  g.,  iii.  3.  22,  Nam 
Fortuna  sua  tempora  lege  regit;  ii.  5.  45, 

Ecce  super  fessas  volitat  Victoria  puppes, 
Tandem  ad  Troianos  diva  superba  venit, 

while  he  also  plays  on  literal  content  and  deity ;  e.  g.,  ii.  6.  19  f., 
credula  Spes;  i.  27: 

Spes  facilem  Nemesim  spondet  mihi,  sed  negat  ilia. 
Ei  mihi,  ne  vincas,  dura  puella,  deam. 

The  designation  of  his  mistress  by  the  term  Nemesis  recalls  the 
Plautine  phrase  Pietas  mea  {Cure.  639).  We  cannot  be  sure  that 
in  the  phrase  Pax  alma  (i.  10.  45  and  67)  we  have  more  than  a 


DEIFIED  ABSTRACTS  AS  A  CLASS  77 

very  vivid  personification,  since  the  cult  is  not  known  to  have  been 
established  at  that  time  (but  see  p.  37). 

Propertius  is  more  skeptical,  at  least  regarding  two  deities: 
iii.  24.  19,  Mens  bona,  si  qua  dea  es,  tua  me  in  sacraria  condo; 
ii.  6.  25, 

Templa  Pudicitiae  quid  opus  statuisse  puellis 
si  cuivis  nuptae  quidlibet  esse  licet. 

Of  Fortuna  he  is  surer  (i.  6.  25)  :  Me  sine,  quem  semper  voluit 
Fortuna  iacere,  .... 

The  abstract  deities  seem  to  have  made  little  impression  upon 
Vergil.  Only  one  clear  allusion  to  the  position  of  any  of  them 
in  the  state-cult  is  found  in  all  his  works,  viz.,  Aen.  i.  292^  where 
Jupiter,  sketching  the  future  Rome  to  Venus,  says:  cana  Fides  et 
Vesta,  Remo  cum  f ratre  Quirinus  iura  dabunt ;  in  which  an  allusion 
to  the  ancient  cult  of  Fides  publica  populi  Romani  is  evident.  True, 
he  writes  of  Victory  smiling  upon  war  (ibid.  xii.  187),  of  Fortune 
renewing  faith  (v.  604),  of  Justice,  the  last  to  leave  the  earth 
(Geor.  ii.  474)  ;  but  these,  like  Fama,  are  merely  the  lay-pieces  of 
rhetoric  or  Greek  myth,  which  he  uses  with  such  effort  to  portray 
scenes  that  he  lays  aside  regard  for  the  actual  facts  of  religion.  So, 
for  example,  after  the  reference  above  to  the  actual  deities,  Fides, 
Vesta,  and  Quirinus,  he  imagines  a  god  Furor  sitting  within  the 
temple  of  Janus.  Compare  Bellona  in  the  train  of  Discordia  among 
the  real  deities,  Neptune,  Mars,  and  Venus.^^ 

The  same  habit  is  seen  in  Horace,  except  that  Horace  often 
seems  consciously  to  make  a  plainer  reference  to  actual  deity  while 
aiming  at  rhetorical  effect.  Cf.  Faustitas  =  Fausta  FeHcitas  (Carm. 
iv.  5.  18),  luventas  =  Hebe  (i.  30.  7).  Fortuna  in  Carm.  i.  35  is 
partly  the  actual  goddess  of  Antium,  but  mainly  the  personification 
of  chance  or  fate;  the  Fides  in  her  train  alludes  to  the  cult  ("velata 
panno"),  but  in  reality  is  a  quality,  as  the  adjective  rara  shows;  and 
to  these  he  adds  a  pure  personification  in  Necessitas  (cf.  Wickham 
ad  loc,  and  Kiessling  ad  Carm.  i.  24.  7 ;  compare  also  Pudor  Carm. 
saec.  57  ff .,  and  Veritas  Carm.  i.  24,  for  mixing  of  fact  and  fancy) . 

Ovid  was  a  great  student  of  religion  and  mythology,  and 
devoted  himself  to  gathering  up  the  etiological  theories  concerning 
them,  often  without  good  discrimination.  In  the  six  books  of  the 
Fasti  he  treated  the  festivals  of  the  abstract  gods  in  the  same  way 

^^  Geor.  ii.  425  refers  only  to  the  fact  that  the  olive  branch  was  used  by  those 
who  sued  for  peace;  cf.  Aen.  vii.  154. 


78       DEIFICATION  OF  ABSTRACT  IDEAS  IN  ROMAN  LITERATURE 

as  those  of  the  anthropomorphic  gods,  and  none  were  omitted  so  far 
as  his  work  went.  Both  in  this  calendar  and  in  his  other  poetry  he 
appears  more  under  their  influence  than  Horace  or  Vergil.  More 
than  almost  any  other  writer,  he  humanizes  the  celestials  (cf. 
Fasti  i.  711:  Frondibus  Actiacis  comptos  redimita  capillos.  Pax). 
And  yet  he  has  no  mere  personification  in  mind ;  e.g.,  Ars  amat. 
i.  445,  446: 

Spes  tenet  in  tempus,  semel  est  si  credita,  longum; 
ilia  quidem  fallax  sed  tamen  apta  dea  est. 

Trist.  iii.  i.  71,  72: 

Nee  me,  quae  doctis  patuerunt  prima  libellis, 
atria  Libertas  tangere  passa  sua  est. 

Fast.  iv.  6.  23,  24: 

hac  [die=April  13]  quoque,  ni  fallor,  populo  dignissima  ratio 
atria  Libertas  coepit  habere  sua. 

In  Fasti  i.  121  f.  he  represents  Pax  dwelling  in  the  temple  of 
Janus,  and  declares  that  when  to  the  latter 

libuit  Pacem  placidis  emittere  tectis, 
libera  per  tutas  ambulat  ilia  vias. 

When  describing  a  procession  of  gods  (Amor.  iii.  2.  45),  he  invokes 
Victoria,  who  is  the  first  to  pass  by,  to  come  to  his  help  and  make 
his  love  victorious.  In  recalling  the  courage  of  Iphias  (Ars  amat, 
iii.  21  ff.),  he  remarks: 

ipsa  quoque  et  cultu  est  et  nomine  femina  Virtus ; 
non  mirum  populo  si  placet  ilia  suo. 

Yet  the  attempt  in  two  cases  to  clothe  these  artificial  deities  in 
the  garb  of  vivid  personality  by  the  use  of  mythology  makes  Ovid 
inconsistent  and  illustrates  for  us  the  poverty  of  such  material,  for 
the  poet  makes  lustitia  and  Spes  each  the  last  divinity  to  leave  the 
earth ;  thus  Fasti  i.  249 : 

nondum  lustitiam  facinus  mortale  fugarat, 
ultima  de  superis  ilia  reliquit  humum, 

Ponttis  i.  6.  29 :  Haec  dea  [i.  e.,  Spes]  .  .  .  .  in  dis  invisa  sola 
remansit  humo.  While  Ovid's  works  are  replete  with  personifica- 
tion we  find  few  cases  of  confusion  of  it  with  deity ;  e.  g.,  Metam. 
viii.   776,  neque  enim  Cereremque   Famemque   fata  coire   sinunt: 


DEIFIED  ABSTRACTS  AS  A  CLASS  79 

Amor. .  i.    2.    30  ff . ;    Mens    Bona  ....  Pudor  ....  Blanditiae 
Error  Furor. 

In  prose  of  this  period  we  have  only  the  history  of  Livy,  which 
narrates  the  foundation  of  cults,  but  gives  no  inkling  of  the  attitude 
of  the  author  or  of  anybody  else. 

C.    LITERATURE  OF  THE  FIRST  AND  SECOND  CENTURIES  A.  D. 

In  taking  up  the  sources  of  the  first  two  centuries  in  our  era 
we  may  pass  over  at  once  the  mythological  work  under  the  name 
of  Hyginus  ;  although  at  the  beginning  this  contains  the  genealogy 
of  many  deified  abstracts  among  other  divinities,  they  are  only  a 
compilation  from  Greek  sources,  particularly  tragedy,  and  hence 
valueless  for  our  purpose.  Valerius  Maximus  also  gives  us  little 
aid,  on  account  of  the  fulsome  rhetoric  with  which  he  colors  his 
collection  of  anecdotes.  Yet  he  draws  pictures,  not  only  of  personi- 
fication, but  of  the  gods.  Note,  for  example,  his  description  of 
Tiberius  attended  on  his  journey  to  his  sick  brother  Drusus  in  Ger- 
many by  sanctissimum  Pietatis  numen  et  di  fautores  eximiarum 
virtutum  et  fidissimus  Romam  imperi  custos,  luppiter  (v.  5.  3)  ; 
also  the  picture  of  Fides  in  vi.  6.  5  EA;t.  i:  crediderim  tunc  ipsam 
Fidem  humana  negotia  speculantem  maestum  gessisse  vultum,  per- 
severantissimum  sui  cultum  iniquae  fortunae  iudicio  tam  acerbo 
exitu  damnatum  cernentem;  also  vi.  6.  i  and  i.  8.  17:  societatem 
....  ipsius  caelestis  Concordiae  genitam;  vii.  7,  4:  si  ipsa  Aequi- 
tas  hac  de  re  cognosceret.  In  the  case  of  Pudicitia  (vi.  i)  his 
rhetoric  carries  him  beyond  the  limits  of  reality,  when  he  portrays 
her  as  a  goddess  ofichastity,  honored  by  both  sexes,  married  and 
unmarried. 

Seneca,  as  a  believer  in  deism,  threw  overboard  the  abstract 
with  the  mythological  gods.  They  do  not  appear  at  all  in  his 
moral  essays  and  epistles.  Unfortunately,  his  essay  De  super- 
stitione  has  been  almost  entirely  lost,  but  from  the  fragment  pre- 
served by  Augustine  (De  civ.  dei  vi.  10),  in  which  he  characterizes 
Pavor  and  Pallor  as  teterrimos  hominum  adfectus,  quorum  alter 
mentis  territae  motus  est,  alter  corporis  ne  morbus  quidem  sed  color 
(frag.  33,  ed.  Haase),  we  may  infer  that  he  wrote  an  extended 
polemic  against  the  deified  appellatives.  The  line  (Oct.  911),  nullum 
Pietas  nunc  numen  habet  nee  sunt  superi;  regnat  mundo  tristis 
Erinys,  of  course  is  only  dramatic. 


:v 


80        DEIFICATION  OF  ABSTRACT  IDEAS  IN  ROMAN  LITERATURE 

The  same  point  of  view  is  taken  by  Pliny  the  Elder,  and  dis- 
cussed quite  fully  in  a  passage  concerning  the  futility  of  inquiring 
into  the  form  and  figure  of  the  divine  power.  In  ii.  7.  14  ff. 
he  says: 

Innumeros  quidem  credere  atque  etiam  ex  vitiis  hominum,  ut  Pudicitiam, 
Concordiam,  Mentem,  Spem,  Honorem,  Qementiam,  Fidem,  aut  (ut  Demo- 
crito  placuit)  duos  omnino  Poenam  et  Beneficium  maiorem  ad  socordiam 
accedit.  Fragilis  et  laboriosa  mortalitas  in  partes  ista  digessit  infirmitatis 
suae  memor,  ut  portionibus  coleret  quisque  quo  maxime  indigeret. 

He  comments  further  on  the  multitude  of  such  conceptions  and 
the  worship  of  evils,  instancing  those  that  Cicero  named — a  fact 
that  shows  the  dependence  of  this  passage  on  Cicero's  philosophical 
works.^^  Fortuna,  he  says  (§22),  was  a  goddess  midway  between 
antithetical  conceptions,  devised  by  man  in  order  that  surmise  about 
deity  might  be  less  clear.  She  is  invoked  at  all  hours  and  places  by 
everybody  throughout  the  world,  now  in  praise,  now  in  censure  as 
the  cause  of  all  gain  and  loss.  Mankind  is  such  a  slave  to  the  lot 
that  the  lot  itself  stands  as  a  god. 
X>'  Tacitus  reveals  no  hint  of  his  personal  attitude,  but  the  chron- 
icle of  events  he  has  left  us  clearly  indicates  the  tendency  of  feeling 
toward  these  gods  throughout  the  imperial  period.  The  creation 
of  divinities  so  frequent  in  the  third  and  second  centuries  B.C.  is 
revived,  and  goes  to  ridiculous  extremes  when  the  virtues  of  the 

I  ruling  house  become  the  object  of  flattery.  Any  mere  appellative 
made  prominent  by  some  connection  with  the  emperor  or  his  family 
was  revered  and  exalted  till  it  becomes  extremely  difficult  to  judge 
whether,  even  in  official  circles,  it  was  only  praised  or  really 
adored.  So  altars,  in  the  republic  a  true  sign  of  cult,  came  to  be 
practically  honorary  tablets  indirectly  to  flatter  the  emperor.  In  the 
inscriptions  those  in  which  the  deification  was  connected  with  the 

.     emperor  as  the  possessor  (in  the  genitive  case)  constitute  the  great 

:     majority,  except  in  those  pertaining  to  Fortuna  and  Victoria. 

i  Now,  Tacitus  shows  how  the  servile  Senate  manufactured  these 

deifications,  setting  up  altars  to  Clementia  and  Amicitia  (Ann.  iv. 
74)  and  voting  one  for  Adoptio  (ibid.  i.  14).  Editors  of  Tacitus 
usually  imply  that  no  worship  was  intended  for  these  altars,  but 

"It  is  a  sign  of  the  almost  total  absence  of  cults  of  base  qualities  in 
the  flourishing  period  of  the  Roman  state  that,  after  Cicero,  no  new  names  are 
cited  as  instances.  It  is  probable  that  the  shrines  mentioned  were  founded  in  the 
early  period  when  the  religion  was  popular  and  not  official. 


DEIFIED  ABSTRACTS  AS  A  CLASS  8l 

that  they  were  commemorative.  But  certainly  worship  different  in 
essence  from  that  suggested  by  these  altars  was  not  intended  when 
the  temple  of  Fecunditas  was  built  in  63  a.  d.  with  direct 
reference  to  the  pregnancy  of  the  empress  (Ann.  xv.  23).  Th^  dif- 
ference is  only  in  degree,  and  it  is  more  exact,  perhaps,  to  say  that 
in  both  cases  there  was  formal  worship,  but  it  amounted  to  not  much 
more  than  commemoration.  The  proposed  altar  to  Ultio  in  the 
temple  of  Mars  Ultor  was  doubtless  intended  to  receive  sacrifices. 

Suetonius  also  has  an  illustrative  passage  {V  it  ell.  15)  on  the 
meaningless  treatment  of  these  divinities.  When  Rome  was  rent 
with  faction  and  blood  was  flowing,  the  emperor  took  off  his  pon- 
iard and  quasi  in  aede  Concordiae  positurus  abscessit.  Sed  qui- 
busdam  adclamantibus  ipsum  esse  Concordiam  rediit  nee  solum 
retinere  se  ferrum  affirmavit  verum  etiam  Concordiae  recipere  cog- 
nomen. Now,  these  sycophants  surely  did  not  consider  him  the 
feminine  deity  Concordia,  but  the  spirit  of  concord.  Neither  they 
nor  he  would  have  given  him  the  designation  Juno  or  Minerva. 

Turning  to  poetry,  we  find  little  in  Lucan  outside  of  personifi- 
cation, and  this  statement  is  also  true  of  the  poetical  portions  of 
Petronius'  Saturae.  In  the  latter  occurs  a  striking  picture  of  Pax, 
Fides,  lustitia,  and  Concordia  (§124,  11.  245,  263,  Biicheler),  but 
they  are  immediately  followed  by  unreal  deities  like  Letum,  Insi- 
diae,  and  Furor.  Petronius  also  fancies  a  temple  of  Amor  (§127. 
3),  and  frequently  mentions  Fortuna. 

SiLius  Italicus  was  given  to  excessive  rhetoric,  and  personifi- 
cation is  worn  to  death  in  the  Bellum  Punicum.  Mors,  Luctus, 
Planctus,  Maeror,  Dolor,  Metus,  Terror,  and  Furor,  and  so  on  ad 
infinitum,  appear  everywhere.  Deity  and  quality  are  combined  in 
confusion  merely  for  vivid  effect;  e.g..  Virtus  and  Voluptas  (xv. 
18),  Ebrietas,  Luxus,  Infamia  Honor,  Laudes,  Gloria  Decus 
ac  Victoria  (xv.  95  ff.)-  In  the  case  of  Fides,  however, 
whom  he  treats  frequently  and  at  length  in  books  ii  and 
vi,  he  has  deity  clearly  in  mind.  Thus  he  makes  Hercules  pro- 
ceed to  her  temple  in  heaven  and  address  her  thus:  ante  lovem 
generata  decus  divumque  hominumque.  Qua  sine  non  tellus  pacem, 
non  aequora  norunt,  lustitiae  consors  tacitumque  in  pectore  numen, 
quem  maesta  virorum  ora  vocant,  etc.  (ii.  475  ff.),  the  longest 
passage  concerning  any  of  the  deified  virtues  in  Latin  literature. 

Statius  is  still  more  prolific  in  figments  of  the  brain,  but  he 
also  has  a  few  references  to  our  deities,  e.  g.,  Silv.  iii.  3.  i. 


82        DEIFICATION  OF  ABSTRACT  IDEAS  IN  ROMAN  LITERATURE 

Summa  deum  Pietas,  cuius  gratissima  caelo 

rara  profanatas  inspectant  numina  terras 

hue  vittata  comam  niveoque  insignis  amictu 


He  styles  Virtus  "gory"  (cruenta,  Silv.  i.  6.  62),  Fides  alma  (Theb. 

xi.  98).     With  him,  as  with   Silius,   Concordia  is   specialized  to 

married  life  (ibid.  i.  240).    He  also  deifies  Annona  (ibid.  i.  6.  38). 

50  The  satires  of  Juvenal  contain  a  few  allusions,  e.g.,  i.  114: 

....  nullas  nummorum  ereximus  aras 

ut  colitur  Pax  atque  Fides  Victoria  Virtus 

quaeque  salutato  crepitat  Concordia  nido  .... 

in  which  the  contrast  between  a  cult  of  wealth  and  that  of  the 
virtues  and  utilities  shows  a  respect  for  the  latter.  In  vi.  307  ff .  he 
severely  censures  the  insult  to'  the  statue  of  Pudicitia  by  women. 
On  the  other  hand,  he  depreciates  Fortuna  (x.  365  f.,  quoted  by 
Lactantius  iii.  29.  17)  : 

nullum  numen  habes,  si  sit  prudentia;  nos  te 
nos  facimus,  Fortuna,  deam  caeloque  locamus. 

y  Upon  Martial  our  cults  apparently  made  little  impression,  for 

the  few  allusions  are  merely  rhetorical,  e.  g.,  x.  50.  1-4,  Victoria, 
Favor,  Honor,  and  Gloria;  iv.  13.  7,  Concordia  and  Venus  in 
metonymy. 

Of  the  other  authors  in  this  period  we  need  speak  only  of 
Apuleius,    Fronto,    and   Aulus    Gellius.      The    Metamorphoses   of 

|i  (y^-sApuLEius  are  replete  with  personification  and  deification,  but  since 
the  tales  are  essentially  Greek,  we  learn  little  regarding  Roman 
practice.^^  Probable  references  to  Roman  deities,  however,  are 
found  in  vi.  15:  nee  Providentiae  bonae  graves  oculos  innocentis 
animae  latuit  aerumna;  ii.  21 :  ut  ipsos  etiam  oculos  Solis  et  lustitiae 
frustrentur,  cf.  iii.  7,  iii.  26:  sed  pro  luppiter  hospitalis  et  Fidei 
secreta  numina;  xi.  28:  quidni  spiritu  faventis  Eventus.  Doubtful 
is  xi.  ID,  Aequitatis  indicium;  but  as  the  priests  of  Isis  are  repre- 
sented bearing  the  symbols  of  certain  gods  (potentissimorum 
deum  praeferebant  insignis  exuvias,  quorum  primus  lucernam 
....  secundus  altaria  ....  deae,  ibat  tertius  ....  Mercuri- 
ale  caduceum,   quartus   Aequitatis   indicium,   deformatam   manum 

•*  The  mock-serious  worship  of  Risus,  so  frequently  referred  to  in  ii.  31; 
iii.  10,  and  elsewhere,  was  an  actual  Greek  cult,  TAws,  in  Thessaly  and  Sparta. 
Cf.  Plut.  Clean.  9 ;  Lycurgus  25. 


DEIFIED  ABSTRACTS  AS  A  CLASS  83 

sinistram  porrecta  palmula),  the  goddess  may  have  been  intended. 
Besides  these,  Victoria  and  Fortuna,  with  their  conventional  epi- 
thets, are  often  mentioned  (e.  g.,  vii.  2;  vi.  28;  ii.  4),  and  with  the 
latter  goddess  it  is  interesting  to  observe  a  conception  common  in 
the  inscriptions :  ii.  20,  per  Fortunas  (vestras)  vestrosque  Genios — 
as  if  the  fortunes  of  a  man  were  comparable  to  presiding  spirits. 
From  the  letters  of  Fronto  we  have  a  single  passage  of  inter- 
est. In  expressing  his  preference  for  the  spontaneous  affection  of 
Marcus  Aurelius  and  his  dislike  of  esteem  that  is  won  by  skilful 
obsequiousness,  he  is  drawn  into  a  comparison  between  fortuna 
and  ratio,  in  which  he  sees  the  great  superiority  of  the  former,  viz. : 

Quis  ignorat  rationem  humani  consili  vocabulum  esse,  Fortunam  autem 
deam  dearumque  praecipuarum  ?  templa  f ana  delubra  passim  Fortunae  dicata : 
rationi  nee  simulacrum  nee  aram  usquam  conseeratam  (p.  8  ed.  Naber; 
cf.  p.  157). 

AuLus  Gellius  declares  that  the  Romans  worshiped  Fides 
above  all  the  other  virtues  (xx.  i.  39).  He  also  describes  the  appear- 
ance of  lustitia,  according  to  Chrysippus,  the  Stoic,  in  art  and  ora- 
tory as  follows :  forma  atque  filo  virginali  aspectu  vementi  et 
formidabili,  luminibus  oculorum  acribus,  neque  humilis  neque 
atrocis  sed  reverendae  cuiusdam  tristitiae  dignitate  But  his  most 
important  note  is  that  which  gives  a  list  of  gods  in  libris  sacerdotum 
populi  Romani  et  in  antiquis  orationibus,  showing  how  certain 
qualities  inherent  in  the  gods  are  themselves  deified  and  considered 
the  companions  of  these  gods ;  e.  g.,  Salacia  Neptuni,  Virites 
Quirini,  Moles  Mortis.     (See  above,  p.  54.) 

D.    LITERATURE  OF  THE   LATE  EMPIRE 

After  Gellius  we  rarely  meet  with  any  references  to  our  subject 
until  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries,  and  here  almost  no  attention 
to  them  is  given  save  as  mere  personifications.  Occasionally  we 
find  allusions  to  a  cult  showing  that  it  still  existed ;  e.  g.,  Flav. 
Vopisc.  xxviii.  12.  7,  Concordia  et  Romana  Victoria;  Amm.  Marc. 
xxix.  6.  19,  concerning  the  temple  of  Bonus  Eventus  in  the  Campus 
Martins. 

Victoria  plays  a  prominent  role  in  Symmachus  and  contem- 
porary writers,  but  not  so  much  with  regard  to  her  cult  as  to  the 
burning  question  whether  her  statue,  representing  the  pagan  religion, 
should  remain  in  the  senate  house.     The  early  Christian  emperors 


84        DEIFICATION  OF  ABSTRACT  IDEAS  IN  ROMAN  LITERATURE 

had  allowed  the  worship  of  the  abstracts,  while  they  repressed  that 
of  the  anthropomorphic  deities,  because  they  felt  that  such  worship 
amounted  to  little  else  than  the  commemoration  and  veneration  of 
qualities  which  they  themselves  revered  as  characteristics  of  the  one 
God.  Their  chief  struggle  was  against  gods  with  barbarous  mytho- 
logical association,  which  squarely  opposed  Christianicy;  not  against 
mere  shadowy  notions  symbolized  in  plastic  art  and  literary  image. 
Accordingly,  until  Theodosius  officially,  and  probably  after  him 
unofficially,  statues  were  permitted  to  stand,  and  the  emperors 
allowed  their  courtiers  to  address  them  by  these  abstract  terms. 
(Cf.  Amm.  Marc,  xxviii.  6.  7.)  And  this  is  the  ground  that  Sym- 
machus  was  forced  to  take  in  pleading  for  the  retention  of  the 
statue  of  Victoria.  His  words  sound  as  if  pleading  for  a  figure  of 
Justice  on  a  county  courthouse;  e.g.  (x.  3.  3)  :  quis  ita  familiaris 
est  barbaris  ut  aram  Victoriae  non  requirat  ....  reddatur  saltem 
nomini  honor,  qui  numini  denegatus  est  ...  .  cunctis  potentia  ista 
votiva:  nemo  colendam  neget,  quam  profitetur  optandam.  But  the 
very  ardor  of  his  eloquence  betrayed  the  fact  that  he  was 
pleading,  not  for  a  mere  nomen,  but  for  a  niimen  which,  masked, 
disguised,  and  accorded  official  sanction,  would  represent  to  tiie 
people  the  old  religion  and  be  a  power  for  its  preservation  and 
future  restoration.  Ambrosius,  however,  foiled  this  scheme,  and 
Victoria  was  doomed. 

Both  pagan  and  Christian  writers  of  this  period  employ  the 
word  deus  or  dea  with  some  freedom,  but  only  in  a  perfunctory 
way,  very  much  as  the  adjective  divinus,  applied  to  something  rare 
or  beyond  the  control  of  man.  This  was,  of  course,  the  same  func- 
tion that  the  word  had  commonly  as  used  by  the  pagan  poets 
throughout  Latin  literature,  and  the  Christian  poet  had  no  hesitation 
in  following  rhetorical  custom ;  e.  g.,  Ausonius  iv.  4.  24,  Fortis  deae. 

Of  the  authors  of  this  period  Claudianus  alone  deserves  men- 
tion in  our  field.  While  he  personified  freely  and  is  rhetorical 
throughout,  yet  in  a  few  passages  he  seems  to  feel  the  genuine 
reality  of  our  deities,  as  e.  g.,  in  his  exaltation  of  Clementia  (xxii. 
6.  II ;  xvii.  166  ff.)  and  Victoria  (xxviii.  597;  xxiv.  204).  Besides 
the  usual  deifications,  he  personifies  Prudentia,  Temperies,  Constan- 
tia,  Patientia,  Audacia,  Voluptas,  Formido,  and  others. 

Here  we  may  briefly  mention  the  grammarians  and  antiquarians, 
who,  as  a  rule,  afford  little  assistance  toward  a  realization  of  actual 
cults,  because  they  only  compile  the  statements  of  previous  authors 


DEIFIED  ABSTRACTS  AS  A  CLASS  85 

without  discrimination.  In  this  way  AusoNius  fell  into  a  ludicrous 
mistake,  when  in  his  list  of  some  actual  deities  (xi.  8)  he  included 
Fas  and  Vis  (see  above,  p.  56),  making  deities  out  of  common  nouns. 
In  the  list  of  months  he  ascribes  a  possible  origin  of  the  name  lunius 
from  luventa.  Macrobius  hands  down  the  interesting  theory  that 
the  gods  are  various  names  for  the  sun  and  its  powers,  citing; 
lustitia  and  Nemesis  among  them.  He  also  names  Vitula  a  deity  of 
exultation  on  the  authority  of  Hyllus  =  Hyginus  (supra),  and 
collects  the  numerous  cognomina  of  Salus — Semonia,  Seia,  Segetiay 
Tutilina.  Servius  (Ad.  Aen.  iii.  607)  has  the  interesting  observa^ 
tion  that  the  philosophers  (physici)  say  that  different  members  of 
the  body  were  consecrated  to  various  deities:  aurem  Memoriae, 
fontem  Genio,  dextram  Fidei,  genua  Misericordiae  (cf.  Mytho^. 
Vaticani  11.  23  f..  Bode);  but  this  is  doubtless  Greek  in  origin). 
The  other  grammarians  have  been  cited  as  occasion  arose  in  disi 
cussing  the  various  gods  in  Part  I. 


E.      THE  CHRISTIAN  FATHERS 

In  their  attack  upon  the  old  Roman  religion  the  early  Christian 
writers,  Minucius  Felix,  Tertullian,  Arnobius,  Lactantius,  Jerome, 
Augustine,  and  Paulinus,  selected  the  deified  abstractions  for  attack 
as  one  of  the  weak  points  in  the  system.  All  urge  the  charge  that 
was  brought  out  by  Gotta  in  Gicero's  De  natura  deorum,  viz.,  that 
these  were  mental  notions  without  substance  or  life,  masquerading 
as  divine  personalities.  Arnobius  succinctly  puts  the  matter  thus 
(iv.  2) : 

nihil  horum  sentimus  et  cernimus  habere  vim  numinis  neque  in  aliqua 
contineri  sui  generis  forma  sed  esse  virtutem  viri,  salutem  salvi,  honorem 
honorati,  victoris  victoriam,  concordis  concordiam,  pietatem  pii,  memoriam 
memoris,  feliciter  vero  viventis  ac  sine  ullis  offensionibus  felicitatem. 

Lactantius  {Inst.  i.  20.  18)  adds:  non  enim  per  se  parietes  aut 
aediculas  luto  factas  sed  intra  pectus  collocandae  sunt.  Paulinus 
Nolanus  (Epist.  xvi.  c.  4)  calls  them  cassa  nomina,  as 
foolishly  endowed  with  divine  honor  as  they  were  invented.  But 
Augustine  was  the  first  to  analyze  and  satirize  thoroughly  their 
inconsistencies  and  imperfections  by  showing,  first,  that  such  deifi- 
cations were  not  mutually  exclusive ;  e.  g.,  Fortuna  and  Felicitas 
{De  civ.  dei  iv.  18;  there  was  really  no  place  for  Jupiter  with  Vic- 
toria a  goddess,  iv.   14)  ;  secondly,  that  they  rested  upon  chance 


% 


86        DEIFICATION  OF  ABSTRACT  IDEAS   IN  ROMAN  LITERATURE 

and  the  impulse  of  individuals,  and  hence  were  arbitrary  creations, 
whereas  many  concepts  not  canonized — e.  g.,  regnum,  temperantia, 
fortitudo,  and  Quies  (the  latter  only  a  popular  cult) — weie  as 
worthy  of  public  worship  as  Victoria  or  Virtus  (iv.  14,  16,  2c)  ; 
and,  lastly,  that  evils  like  Febris  should  no  more  be  considered  gods 
than  should  discordia  (iii.  25). 

From  this  view  of  the  direct  statements  of  serious  discussions 
and  the  indirect  evidence  of  other  literature  it  is  clear  that  the 
scholarly  and  literary  Romans  felt  strongly  the  difference  between 
the  deified  abstracts  and  the  other  gods.  They  were  to  them,  with 
certain  exceptions,  transparent  projections  of  mental  concepts  with- 
out saga  or  personality,  and  were  excluded  from  the  rank  of  the 
chief  gods,  since  their  presence  and  potency  were  not  so  strongly 
felt.  Their  sex,  which  was  in  reality  no  more  than  the  grammatical 
gender  of  their  names,  was  often  forgotten,  and  they  were  degraded 
to  serve  in  literature  as  mere  personifications,  with  other  personifica- 
tions that  were  never  made  gods,  from  which  character  it  is  always 
difficult  to  distinguish  them. 

IPX.  THE  ABSTRACTS  IN  THE  INSCRIPTIONS 
In  the  sacred  inscriptions  we  find  quite  different  and  often  surer 
evidence  than  in  literature.  They  reveal  to  us  the  attitude,  not  of 
the  scholars  and  poets,  but  of  all  classes ;  and  the  altars,  shrines,  and 
temples  with  which  they  are  connected,  the  use  of  the  term  sacrum 
and  other  formulae,  the  records  of  sacrifices  and  feasts,  of  priests 
and  guilds,  are  quite  as  positive  evidence  as  the  statements  of  the 
investigators,  and  more  credible  than  a  poetic  allusion.  To  set  up  an 
altar  to  a  deity  required  and  expressed  far  greater  conviction  of  the 
potency  of  that  deity  than  to  inscribe  its  name  on  a  roll  of  papyrus. 

How,  then,  did  the  Romans  popularly  look  upon  our  divinities, 
according  to  the  test  of  their  inscriptions?  Did  they  treat  them  in 
the  same  fashion  as  the  major  gods,  or  were  they  skeptical  of  their 
existence  as  personalities? 

The  testimony  of  the  stones  does  not  all  point  in  the  same  direc- 
tion, nor  is  it  the  same  foJi-all-the,^fty  or  more  abstractions  com- 
memorated. Moreover,  many  of  the  legends  are  ambiguous  because 
of  their  brevity.  Not  infrequently,  too,  an  abstract  noun  may  be 
interpreted  as  an  appellative  or  a  deification,  as  was  the  case  so 
often  in  literature.    This  ebb-and-flow  between  literal  meaning  and 


DEIFIED   ABSTRACTS   AS   A  CLASS  87 

pq^nification^this^Pi^-Jekyll-and-Mr.-Hyde  existence  of  our  dei- 
ties^ is  apparent  even  on  a  superficial  examination  of  the  monuments, 
and^is  easily  detected  sometimes  in  one  and  the  same  inscription.    1^ 

Let  us  look  first  at  those  showing  personality,  which  make  up  j 
about ^  on£=third  of  the  several  hundred  examples  which  I  have  ' 
noted.  We  must,  of  course,  exclude  from  the  number  those  show- 
ing the  name  only  of  a  deity — e.  g.,  Concordiae  sacrum ;  for  only  the 
author  of  such  a  reading  could  tell  whether  the  personality  of  the 
goddess  or  the  idea  of  harmony  was  uppermost  in  his  mind.  It 
may  be  objected  that  this  is  true  of  all  the  gods ;  that  the  anthropo- 
morphic as  well  as  the  transparent  represented  concepts  expressed 
in  their  names  which  were  the  real  object  of  prayer  and  worship  by 
their  devotees.  But  this  is  not  quite  true.  Originally  Jupiter,  Nep- 
tune, Mercury,  and  the  other  major  deities  were,  of  course,  derived 
from  pure  appellatives ;  but  not  only  had  these  names  shifted  so 
widely  from  their  original  roots  that  their  derivation  was  a  source 
of  speculation  even  to  the  learned,^*  but  they  had  taken  on  human 
forms,  attributes,  powers,  and  failings  because  of  the  influence  of 
the  imaginative  literature  and  plastic  art  of  Greece. 

And  when  these  sacred  names  were  used  to  stand  for  common 
objects,  the  user  was  plainly  conscious  of  the  metonymy.  If  *'sub 
love"  meant  "under  the  clear  sky"  to  the  ordinary  Roman,  he 
probably  had  an  image  of  the  heaven-dwelling  lord  without  any 
sense  of  derivation.  So,  too,  when  Terence  says  (Etin.  732),  "sine 
Cerere  et  Libero  friget  Venus,"  these  deities  do  not  lose  their  per- 
sonality by  the  metonymy.  The  fact  that  the  phrase  was  a  proverb 
is  sufficient  proof  (Cic.  ibid.  ii.  60).  But  the  deities  we  are  con- 
cerned with  never  lost  their  transparent  meaning  and  whether  they 
took  on  personality  to  any  extent  or  not  is  the  object  of  our  present 
investigation. 

The  signs  of  personality  are,  in  general,  vocative,  epithets  and 
adjectives  applicable  to  a  human  being,  like  optimus,  stator,  con- 
servator, regina,  which  are  applied  to  Jupiter  and  Juno.  The  deities 
Bonus  Eventus,  Concordia,  Fides,  Fortuna,  Pax,  Pietas,  Salus,  Spes, 
Tutela,  Valetudo,  Victoria,  and  Virtus  have  such  designations,  and 
of  them  Fortuna,  Victoria,  Salus,  and  Virtus  far  more  commonly 

**  Cf.  Cicero  De  nat.  deor.  iii.  62.  In  enodandis  autem  nominibus,  quod 
miserandum  sit,  laboratis.  Saturnus,  quia  se  saturat  omnis,  Mavors,  quia  magna 
vertit,  Minerva  quia  minuit  aut  quia  minatur,  Venus,  quia  venit  ad  omnia,  Ceres 
a  gerendo.     Quam  periculosa  consuetudo !     In  multis  enim  nominibus  haerebitis. 


SS       DEIFICATION  OF  ABSTRACT  IDEAS  IN  ROMAN  LITERATURE 

than  the  others,  as  was  to  be  expected.  Fortuna,  indeed,  seems 
almost  as  anthropomorphic  as  any  of  the  "twelve  gods."  F.  Primi- 
genia  is  styled  lovis  puer(==puella)  (CIL.  XIV,  2862,  2863),  and 
once  is  addressed  as  follows : 

Tu,  quae  Tarpeio  coleris  vicina  Tonanti, 
Votorumvindex  semper  Fortuna  meorum, 
Accipe 

She  is  commonly  called  Redux,  Obsequens,  Respiciens,  and  Regina. 
(Cf.  also  Carter  De  cogn,  deor.,  p.  61,  and  Trans.  Amer.  Phil.  Asso. 
1900,  p.  60.) 

Victoria  is  called  Virgo  (L'ann.  epig.  1898,  no.  14),  Regina 
(XIII.  4290),  Comes  Virtutis  (VIII.  18240),  dominorum  {Notizie 
1891,  p.  251),  and  Sancta  (III.  7687).  Twice  she  is  tautologically 
styled  Victrix  (VIII.  9017;  VII.  iii),  as  if  her  personality  had  so 
overshadowed  the  meaning  of  her  name  that  it  became  unimpressive 
and  the  adjective  was  ascribed  to  her  as  it  was  to  Venus!  Salus  is 
invoked  directly  and  in  the  same  manner  as  Jupiter,  Juno,  and 
Minerva  in  the  prayers  of  the  Arval  Brothers  for  the  safety  of  the 
emperor,  and  Virtus  was  often  called  by  the  soldiers  their  "dea 
sancta"  (VIII.  9026,  9027;  XIII.  6385).  One  inscription  from 
Africa  (L'ann.  epig.  1898,  no.  61)  reads:  Deae  pedisequae  Virtutis 
Bellonae  lecticam  cum  suis  ornamentis  et  basem  C.  Avianius  Aman- 
dus  augur  d(onum)  d(edit)  et  consecravit.  The  others  named, 
above  are  vividly  personified  once  or  twice,  as  follows: 

(Wilmanns  Exempla  150)  Concordia  Sospes. 
(II.  2412)  deo  sancto  Evento. 

(IX.  60)    Alma  Fides  tibi  ago  grates,  sanctissima  diva. 
(VI.  17130)    Sed  te  nunc,  Pietas,  venerorque  precorque 
Ut  bene  pro  meriteis  hilares  Hilaram. 
in  which  latter  case  the  word  hilares  is  strikingly  human. 
(VII.  100)    Salus  Regina. 
(XI.  4188,  6433)  Spes  et  Fortuna  valete. 

(XIII.  411,  VI.  30984)   Tutelae  sanctissimae,  Tutelae  optimae. 
(VII.  20747)  Bonae  Valetudini  sanct(ae). 

But  by  far  the  great  majority  of  the  inscriptions  show  that  mere 
quality  was  the  predominant  element  in  the  author's  conception. 
The  indications  of  this  are,  first,  impersonal  adjectives  and  epithets; 
second,  genitives  and  modifying  phrases.  The  common  epithet 
perpetua  applied  to  Concordia,  Pax,  and  Salus  (VIII.  15447;  II. 
3349  J  X.  4170a)  is  rarely  used  of  a  person,  though  Martial  (vi. 


DEIFIED  ABSTRACTS  AS  A  CLASS  89 

64.  10)  writes  perpetui  scrinia  Silii ;  and  publica,  salutaris,  casualis, 
militaris,  used  of  Felicitas,  Fortuna,  Fides,  and  Disciplina,  are  like- 
wise usually  impersonal  (11.  4497;  III.  loio;  III.  3315;  VIII. 
9832,  10657;  ^P^'  E,pig.  III.  580;  on  the  other  hand,  note  lovi 
salutari,  Trebellius  Pollio,  xxiii.  5.  5).  All  these  are  the  regular 
terms  applied  to  the  abstracts  in  inscriptions,  and  are  in  great  con- 
trast with  the  very  human  names  attached  to  the  other  gods,  as 
pater,  mater,  invictus,  felix,  vilicus,  and  others.  "lupiter  publicus" 
would  be  an  anomaly. 

In  the  case  of  adjectves  applicable  both  to  persons  and  qualities, 
the  personal  force  is  not  usually  felt  when  they  are  attached  to  the 
abstracts.  Fortuna,  dea  bona,  is,  of  course,  personal,  but  Bona  For- 
tuna, Bonus  Eventus,  Bona  Mens,  Bona  Valetudo,  are  not  the  good 
deities,  Fortuna,  Eventus,  Mens,  Valetudo,  but  the  good  kind  of 
"fortune,"  "outcome,"  and  so  forth ;  they  are  restrictive,  not  descrip- 
tive, and  the  adjective  is  in  reality  an  integral  part  of  the  name,  as 
indeed  it  actually  is  written  in  [Bo]nevento  [profec]tionis  (IX. 
1560).  The  extent  to  which  such  restrictive  adjectives  were  employed 
is  illustrated  by  the  worship  of  Fortuna  Melior  at  Spoletium, 
Antium,  and  Interamna  (XIV.  216). 

But  by  far  the  greatest  number  of  dedications  which  show  weak 
personifications  are  those  wherein  genitives  or  modifying  phrases 
are  attached  to  the  deity's  name.  They  consist  of  the  names  of 
towns  and  townspeople,  e.g.:  (X.  7192)  Concordiae  Agrigenti- 
norum;  of  guilds,  (V.  7555)  Concordiae  collegii,  (V.  4203)  Bonum 
Eventum  VI  vir(um)  sociorum;  of  soldiers,  (XIII.  6670;  III. 
5123)  ;  of  places  of  business  or  public  buildings,  (XI.  3075)  ;  of  the 
gods,  (VIS  pp.  561)  ;  of  the  empire,  the  emperors,  the  Senate,  and 
private  individuals. 

Now,  such  modifiers  are  not  characteristic  of,  but  alien  to,  the 
anthropomorphic  gods.  There  is  no  luppiter  imperi,  no  Mars  mili- 
tum,  no  Neptunus  classis.  The  exceptions  to  this  rule  are  very  few. 
The  most  noteworthy  is  the  phrase  luno  cuiusdam  mulieris;  but 
although  derived  from  the  goddess'  function  as  a  guardian  of  mar- 
riage and  the  female  sex,  the  name  Juno  in  this  use  came  to  stand 
for  an  entity  quite  distinct  from  the  celestial  wife  of  Jupiter.  A 
stone  from  Pannonia  (III.  3305)  bears  the  dedication:  Herculi 
Augusti  M.  Domiti  Secundinus.^^ 

^  This  inscription  so  far  as  I  can  ascertain,  has  not  been  quoted  oin  the 
question  whether  Hercules  was  anciently  a  form  of  Genius.     It  may  have  been  a 


'\ 


t 


90       DEIFICATION   OF  ABSTRACT   IDEAS   IN  ROMAN  LITERATURE 

Another  stone  reads  deae  Dianae  Augustorum  (XIII.  1495),  ^^t 
here  Augustorum  depends  upon  dea,  whose  thought  is  carried  over 
the  appositive,  or  there  is  a  confusion  of  two  constructions.  In 
Mauretania  the  dedication  Dianae  Aug.  Maurorum  (VIII.  8436) 
seems  parallel  to  the  examples  cited  of  the  abstracts.  However,  the 
word  dea  or  some  appositive,  e.  g.,  tutatrix,  is  to  be  understood  with- 
out doubt,  and  a  similar  substitution  seems  at  first  sight  a  plausible 
solution  also  for  the  cases  mentioned  above.  Concordia  Visentium 
(II.  465)  would  then  be  Concordia  Visentium  dea.  But  the  expla- 
nation calls  forth  several  objections.  First,  the  use  of  dea  or  a 
similar  noun  in  apposition  with  an  abstract  modified  by  a  genitive" 
is  comparatively  rare;  second,  the  use  of  a  possessive  adjective 
equivalent  to  a  genitive  as  in  Fidei  suae  sacrum  (X.  5903)  could  not 
be  explained  easily  by  that  substitution;  finally,  the  frequency  of 
such  modifying  genitives  and  the  close  connection  they  form  with 
the  deified  abstracts  amount  almost  to  a  demonstration  that  an 
appositive  was  not  only  not  understood,  but  was  superfluous.  It 
would  be  almost  impossible  to  supply  any  substantive  in  Prosperitati 
deorum  (III.  4557)  and  Providentiae  deorum  (VP,  p.  560).  Con- 
cordiae  Agrigentinorum  sacrum  (X.  7192)  meant  "sacred  to  the 
concord  of  the  Agrigentines,"  not  to  Concord  their  goddess ;  Felici- 
tati  imperi  meant  "to  the  happiness  of  the  Empire;"  Saluti  generis 
humani  (XIII.  1589),  "to  the  welfare  of  the  human  race;"  Fidei 
populi  Romani  (X.  769),  "to  the  public  good  faith  of  the  Roman 
people;"  and  so  on. 

The  genitives  thus  used  may  belong  to  different  grammatical 
categories.  Disciplinae  Augusti  (VII.  896)  is  of  course  subjective, 
as  is  Pietati  cuiusdam  (XL  4772;  VI.  28549)  ;  Tutelae  horreorum 
(II.  2991)  is  more  probably  objective;  Honori  stat(ionis)  (III. 
5123)  may  be  either  objective  or  possessive;  Providentiae  deorum 
(VP,  p.  560)  can  be  subjective  only,  but  Providentiae  Imperatoris 
(cf.  XI.  4170;  X.  6310)    may  be  either  subjective  or  objective, 

copyist's  mistake.  The  restoration  of  III.  5531  given  in  the  index  of  the  Corpus 
as  Herculi  Aug(usti)  n(ostri)  is  uncertain.  It  may  be  Herculi  Aug(usto) 
n(ostro).  The  indices  of  the  Corpus  show  an  astonishing  inconsistency  in  the 
filling-out  of  the  abbreviation  Aug.  Not  only  so,  but  it  is  even  filled  out  without 
indication  that  it  was  abbreviated  on  the  stone.  From  the  frequency  of  the 
genitive  on  coin-legends  and  the  several  cases  in  the  inscriptions,  it  is 
by  no  means  certain  that  Aug.=rAugustus  or  Augusti,  but  this  question  should  be 
left  imprejudiced  by  the  index  of  the  Corpus. 


DEIFIED  ABSTRACTS  AS  A  CLASS  9 1 

according  to  whether  we  understand  the  emperor's  foresight  or  the 
providence  of  the  gods  over  him.  In  short,  these  deified  appella- 
tives thus  modified  behave  precisely  as  do  their  less  fortunate 
brethren  and  sisters  who  were  not  canonized. 

It  may  be  said  that  the  anthropomorphic  gods  also  are  restricted 
in  extent  and  meaning,  and  that  therefore  no  real  difference  exists 
between  them  and  the  abstractions.  Cognomina,  it  is  true,  are  given 
to  all  the  gods  to  locate  them  in  various  places  with  their  special 
cults,  and  so  we  have  lupiter  Anxurus,  Damascenus,  Heliopo- 
litanus,  Dolichenus,  Mars  Buxenus,  Rudianus,  Ceres  An- 
tiatina,  Venus  Erycina,  and  others.  Nevertheless,  their  personality 
is  not  diminished,  for  the  cognomina  of  nationality  are  applicable  to 
persons.  Jupiter  is  the  Heliopolitan,  one  of  the  Heliopolitans. 
Venus  is  one  of  the  Erycini,  just  as  Italian  localities  have  their 
special  Madonnas :  e.  g.,  Santa  Maria  di  Leuca,  di  Luco,  Madonna 
di  Camorana,  di  Laccargia.  Cf.  Notre  Dame  de  Lourdes.  But 
very  rarely  is  a  genitive  of  place  attached  to  the  name  of  a  god  or  a 
singular  subjective  or  possessive  genitive  like  Concordiae  ipsius 
(Acta  Arval,  VP,  p.  482, 1.  17).  Indeed,  so  rare  is  it,  that  an  appar- 
ent example,  viz.,  Marti  suo  Valeri  v.  s.  1.  m.  (XII.  2986),  evoked  a 
note  from  Hirschfeld  ad  locum.  This  tendency  to  use  depersonify- 
ing  modifiers  (to  coin  a  word)  cannot  be  attributed  to  the  looseness 
of  conception  of  imperial  times,  when  qualities  were  regularly  manu- 
factured into  deities;  for  we  find  the  ancient  names  Fides  publica 
populi  Romani,  Fortuna  huiusce  diei  (Cic.  De  legg.  ii.  28:  Fast. 
Allif.    CIL.  l\  p.  323 ;  cf.  Wissowa  R.-K,,  p.  211). 

In  the  examples  thus  far  treated  either  the  element  of  personality 
or  that  of  quality  was  pre-eminent.    A  few  occur  also  in  which  both 
elements  are  seen,  as  they  are  in  Horace  (Carm.  i.  35.  21 ;  cf.  supra,  A 
p.  yy).     We  read  of  statues  being  erected  not  of  a  wide  ruling  1 
deity,  but  of  a  deified  quality  of  some  particular  person  or  persons —  / 
statues,  for  example,  of  Concordia  decurionum  (II.  3424),  Bonus 
Eventus  equitum  leg(ionis)   xxii   (XIII.  6669),  FeHcitas  Aeclani 
(IX.  II 54),  Libertas  Restituta  (VI.  471),  Indulgentia  domini  nostri 
(VIII.  7095),  Securitas  saeculi   (ibid.).     It  is  difficult  to  say  in 
many  cases   whether  Pietas  is   goddess  or  virtue,   for  the   word  \  \i 
became  specialized  to  the  sphere  of  death  and  the  burial  of  the  dead  \  n 
(cf.  Italian  pieta),  and  burial-guilds  were  sometimes  called  collegia 
pietatis,  e.g.,  XII.  add.  ad.  no.  286:     D.  M.  conlig(ium)    (sic) 


I 


92        DEIFICATION  OF  ABSTRACT  IDEAS  IN  ROMAN  LITERATURE 

pietatis  Festina  luliaes  Restitutae  ancilla  ex  pecuni  que  (sic)  funere 
sui  f. ;  also  IX.  add.  1930,  p.  671 : 

Pietas  Martensum 
Hispaniae  Pompiniae 
D.    f.  V.  an.  XXVII  m.  X.  d.  XV    M. 
coniugi  incomparabili 
Pontius  Priscus  meritus 
b.m.f. 

Often  in  sepulchral  inscriptions  the  phrase  pro  pietate  occurs, 
which  is  sometimes  varied  by  the  dative  pietati ;  e.  g.,  VI.  28549 ;  cf. 
Zangemeister,  note  to  XIII.  1 167.  It  is  difficult  in  such  cases  to  dis- 
tinguish between  deity  and  quality,  for  even  in  an  epitaph  the  deity 
may  be  mentioned ;  e.  g.,  Orelli  4577 ;  cf.  CIL.  XIV.  1792 :  D.  M.  s. 
M.  Veti  Decembris  filii  piissimi  reliquae  annorum  XVIII  consecratae 
Pietati  et  Genio  inferno  ab  M.  Vetio  Trophimo  et  Vetia  Lupula 
parentibus.  Therefore,  in  XIII.  1167  mentioned  above,  Lepida 
Valentis  f.  Regini  uxor  Lepida  Regini  fil.  Pietati,  we  cannot  be 
certain  with  Zangemeister  that  the  goddess  was  not  meant.^* 

The  legend  Securitati  sacrum  suggests  a  general  conception  of 
divinity,  but  its  position  at  the  beginning  of  epitaphs  (VI.  28047, 
9016,  25607)  restricts  it  to  the  state  of  safety  which  the  dedicators 
wished  for  the  dead.  Sanctitati  lovis  et  Augusti  sacrum  (XII. 
2981)  is  abstract  noun  used  for  concrete  adjective,  but  it  is  possible 
that  in  the  phrase  sacrum  dis  magnis  maioribus  et  sanctissimae 
Sanctitati  the  last  word  may  represent  an  actual  deity  in  the  dedica- 
tor's mind. 

Confused  conceptions  are  apparent  also  when  a  quality  is  in 
collocation  with  a  real  god ;  e.  g.  (VII.  220),  deo  Marti  et  Victoriae 
p(opuli)  R(omani),  where  the  worshiper  is  thinking  of  Victoria 
and  of  the  victory  of  the  Romans  over  their  foes.  In  the  following 
(XI.  4770),  lovi  O.  M.  Fortunaeque  Maeliori  (sic)  Aug.  et  dis 
daeabus  (sic)  quae,  the  author  conceived  of  Fortuna  Melior,  but  his 
idea  must  have  been  as  loose  as  his  spelling.  In  a  prayer  of  the 
Arvals  (VP,  p.  476)  we  read:  O  Salus  publica  populi  Romani 
Quiritium  te  quaesumus  precamurque  ut  tu  Neronem  Claudium 
....  conserves.     This   immediately    follows   prayers   to   Jupiter, 

"^  From  the  portrait  lying  above  this  inscription  of  a  woman  with  a  little  child 
it  does  not  follow  that  reference  to  the  deity  is  excluded.  The  husband  who  set 
up  the  stone  may  have  intended  by  a  dedication  to  Pietas  to  show  his  own 
pietas. 


DEIFIED  ABSTRACTS  AS  A  CLASS  93 

Juno,  and  Minerva — an  excellent  illustration  of  the  combination  of 
personality  and  literal  content. 

Many  other  abstracts  are  found  in  juxtaposition  with  the  greater 
gods,  and  the  frequency  of  these  combinations  is  to  a  certain  degree 
a  test  of  their  realism.  Fortuna  is  found  in  the  company  of  nearly 
all  the  deities,  but  most  frequently  with  Hercules  in  the  inscriptions 
of  the  equites  singulares  and  close  to  the  Capitoline  trinity,  in  one 
case  even  preceding  Minerva  (XIII.  6728).  Victoria  and  Felicitas 
follow  Mars  and  Mercury  in  the  military  inscriptions;  e.g.,  (VI. 
31140)  :  lovi  O.  M.,  lunoni,  Minervae,  Marti,  Victoriae,  Herculi, 
Fortunae,  Mercurio,  Felicitati  ....    ;  cf.  VI.  31138-87." 

Whenever  any  considerable  number  of  the  gods  is  mentioned, 
Felicitas  and  Salus  are  included,  and  in  the  prayers  of  the  Arval 
Brothers  they  are  invoked  in  close  connection  with  Mars  and 
Hercules.  The  phrase  Martis  et  Pacis  Lari  (Wilmanns  op.  cit.  150) 
shows  a  closeness  of  connection  and  personality  not  elsewhere 
paralleled.  The  meaning  of  this  latter  combination  is,  of  course, 
transparent,  as  it  is  in  XIII.  6621,  lovi  O.  M.,  Apollini,  Aesculapio, 
Saluti,  Fortunae,  in  which  we  have  a  good  example  of  the  successive 
narrowing  of  conceptions. 

But  generally  the  abstracts  are  associated  together,  and  they 
often  have  the  same  seat  of  worship,  whereas  the  combination  in 
one  cult  of  a  personal  and  an  abstract  deity  is  surely  attested  in  only 
one  case — viz..  Mars  and  Victoria  (III.  14370®.) — besides  the 
famous  cult  of  Aesculapius  and  Salus.  So,  besides  the  cult  of 
Honor  and  Virtus  at  Rome,  the  following  pairs  were  enshrined 
together  in  temples  or  chapels  or  had  one  priest  or  were  in  some 
special  manner  associated: 

....  aedem  Fortunae  et  Victoriae. — Ficulea   (XIV.  4002). 
....  sacerdoti  Spei  et  Salutis  Aug. — Gabii  (XIV.  2804). 

As  the  priestess  of  this  cult  gave  largesses  and  games  pro  salute 
Antonini,  it  was  probably  very  prominent  and  under  the  patronage 
of  the  imperial  house,  for  the  deity  Spes  had  special  reference  to  the 
sons  of  the  emperor,  the  "hope"  of  his  house.  Cf.  Fast.  Cum.,  1.  5  ; 
CIL.  I,  p.  310:  Caesar  togam  virilem  sumpsit:  supplicatio  Spei  et 
Iuve(ntati.) 

"For  Mars  and  Victoria  see  also  III.  1098,  5790,  5897,  5898;  VII.  220; 
XIII.  6593.     They  had  a  temple  together  in  Raetia  (III.  14370). 


94       DEIFICATION  OF  ABSTRACT  IDEAS  IN  ROMAN  LITERATURE 

[h]eisce  mag(istrei)  Spei  Fidei  Fortunae  murum  faciutidum  coiravere  M. 
Minucio  L.  Postumio  cos. — lo  B.C.;  Capua  (X.  3775)- 
If  not  in  one  temple,  these  goddesses  were  evidently  closely  asso- 
ciated in  worship. 

Fortunae  et  Tutelae  huius  loci  P.  Aelius p.  p.  aedem  cum  porticu 

a  solo  restituit  (VI.  177). 

The  fortune  and  protection  of  a  place  are  kindred  ideas  and  com- 
monly united.    Cf.  VI.  179,  216;  CIRh.  628. 

flamini  Victoriae  et  Felic(itatis)   Caesar  (is?)   perpetuo   (XI.  437i)- 
sacerdoti  Victoriae  Felicitat(is)    (XI.  4367). 

curatori  lusus  iuvenum  V(ictoriae)  F(elicitatis)  C(aesaris?)    (XI.  4395). 
....  Vic(toriae)  Felic(itatis)    (XL  4373)- 

This  cult  from  Ameria  in  Umbria  is  perhaps  the  most  important 
double  cult  outside  of  Rome  of  which  we  have  evidence,  and  it  was 
without  doubt  the  most  prominent  worship  in  Ameria,  for  its  officers 
were  men  who  held  the  highest  political,  military,  and  social  rank, 
embracing  quattuorviri  iure  dicundo,  aediles,  praefecti  cohortium, 
pontifices,  seviri  Augustales.  The  cult  had  special  exhibitions  cele- 
brated by  the  iuvenes  in  honor  of  the  Caesar  (or  Caesars?).  So 
well  known  was  it,  that  three  of  the  four  iiiscriptions  cited  abbreviate 
the  name  by  omitting  the  connective  and  shortening  the  names,  in 
one  case  even  to  the  initial  letters. 

We  may  also  see  the  lack  of  strong  individuality  in  the  use  of 
the  abstracts  as  cognomina  of  other  gods,  for  in  proportion  as  they 
become  mere  qualities  transparent  in  their  name  they  lose  their 
identity  and  are  attached  to  other  more  clearly  recognized  deities, 
to  whom  their  qualities  are  suited.  This  tendency  toward  amalga- 
mation is  the  opposite  of  that  by  which  one  deity  springs  from 
another,  for  this  latter  process  starts  with  a  given  deity  worshiped  in 
a  special  phase  denoted  by  an  adjective,  which  as  a  token  of  differ- 
entiation from  other  phases  becomes  important,  and  so  overshadows 
the  name  of  the  god  to  whom  it  is  applied  as  to  become  independent, 
and  finally  to  be  supplanted  by  a  noun  of  similar  meaning.  The 
tendency  toward  amalgamation,  on  the  contrary,  starts  with  two 
independent  ideas,  related  in  general  meaning,  which  are  fused  to 
cover  completely  a  given  concept,  the  less  important  of  the  two  ideas 
becoming  subordinate  and  expressed  as  a  cognomen  of  virtually 
adjective  force.  One  deity  is  considered  merely  as  an  aspect  of 
another. 


DEIFIED  ABSTRACTS  AS  A  CLASS  95 

Such  assimilation  is  seen  in  its  extreme  form  in  the  common 
representation  of  Fortuna  with  the  attributes  of  many  other  gods ; 
also  in  the  Stoic  belief  that  all  the  deities  were  phases  of  the  uni- 
verse (mundus)  which  Varro  represented  by  Jupiter.  This  fusion 
is  a  step  farther  on  than  the  com.bination  of  which  we  have  just 
spoken.  It  is  the  identification  of  one  god  as  part  or  function  of 
another;  cf.  Phoebus  Apollo  in  Greek.  But,  unfortunately,  in  the 
inscriptions,  which  are  our  chief  and  almost  only  source  of  informa- 
tion in  this  matter,  it  is  a  perplexing  task  to  distinguish  between 
combination  and  fusion,  because  of  the  inconsistent  and  almost  hap- 
hazard use  of  the  connective  et.  With  combinations  of  three  or 
more  names  without  the  connective  there  is  no  doubt  that  distinct 
deities  are  intended,  but  in  the  case  of  two  it  becomes  a  problem  into 
which  many  elements  enter.  Some  inscriptions  affect  brachylogy 
and  asyndeton,  like  Cato's  De  re  rusfica.  Others  employ  it  to  save 
space,  and  in  a  votive  inscription,  where  no  more  than  one  divinity 
can  be  named  on  a  line,  the  copula  is  often  omitted,  apparently  to 
keep  the  symmetry  of  the  lines.  A  priori  one  would  expect  et 
between  any  two  co-ordinate  words,  but  it  is  omitted  in  a  consider- 
able number  of  cases;  e.g.:  (III.  3158)  I.  O.  M.  |  Fort.  Reduci; 
(III.  5938)  deo  Mercu|rio  Fortunae  Reduci;  (VII.  iiii)  I.  O.  M.| 
Victoriae  |  Victrici| ;  (VIII.  6951)  Honoris  Virtutis  Aug.  sacr; 
(XIV.  2856)  :  Pietati  i  Fort.  Primig.  (XL  4367,  4373,  4395)-  Vic- 
toriae Felicitatis.  In  these  cases  the  space  was  not  small,  and  no 
reason  appears  for  the  asyndeton ;  but  in  all  of  them  there  is  no  doubt 
that  two  deities  were  intended,  and  they  must  show  the  possibility 
of  supplying  a  connective  in  other  cases  not  so  certain.  However, 
they  do  not  constitute  a  large  percentage,  for  while  the  examples 
touching  all  the  gods  have  not  been  examined  for  this  purpose,  yet 
in  the  field  of  abstracts,  out  of  ninety  inscriptions,  only  fifteen 
showed  asyndeton.  We  are  warranted,  therefore,  in  assuming  great 
probability  of  the  use  of  a  cognomen  when  the  connective  is  lacking; 
but  each  case  should  be  weighed  by  itself.  For  even  in  the  well- 
known  cults  of  Jupiter  luventas  and  Jupiter  Libertas,  generally 
taken  by  scholars  as  single  cults  with  cognomina,  there  can  be  rea- 
sonable doubt,  since  it  has  been  seen  above  how  Victoria  et  Felicitas 
(XL  4371)  was  shortened  to  Victoria  Felicitas  even  in  official  desig- 
nation.    Cf.  also  Honoris  Virtutis  Aug The  same  thing  is 

possible  of  lupiter  Libertas,  and  the  two  inscriptions  outside  Rome 
cited  by  Aust  (Roscher  s.  v.  lupiter)  and  Wissowa  {R.-K.,  p.  106, 


96        DEIFICATION  OF  ABSTRACT  IDEAS  IN  ROMAN  LITERATURE 

n.  2)  to  corroborate  the  designation  in  the  Monumentum  Ancyra- 
num  prove  only  that  there  were  similar  cults  in  those  places.  They 
may  easily  have  been  taken  directly  from  the  Roman  abbreviated 
title.3« 

Despite  this  uncertainty,  however,  I  venture  to  give  a  list  of  the 
fairly  certain,  probable,  and  doubtful  cognomina.  An  inspection  of 
the  stone  would  perhaps  lead  one  to  different  conclusions  in  many 
cases,  so  that  this  list  is  mainly  for  the  sake  of  reference. 

The  following  seem  to  me  fairly  certain : 

....  basim  posuit  deae  Florae  Fortunae  Pentheae  (VI.  30867). 
Both  the   singular  deae  and  basim   indicate   one  goddess.     Pantheae  is   a 
regular  cognomen  of  Fortuna  (Roscher  I,  p.  1538). 

lovi  luventuti  (IX.  5574;  XI.  3245). 

lovi  Libertati  (Mon.  Ancyr.  IV.  6;  CIL.  XIV.  2579;  XI.  658). 

deae  Dianae  Nemesi  Aug.    (III.   10440). 
Cf.  III.  4738,  where  Nemesis  is  represented  with  the  attributes  of  Diana. 
On  the  other  hand,  Nemesi  Reginae  et  Deanae  (III.  10476). 

Pantheo  Tutelae  (II.  4055). 
Hiibner  ad  loc.  says  asyndeton  was  not  the  custom  of  the  period  of  this 
inscription,  the  reign  of  the  Antonines. 

deae  Virtuti  Bellonae   (V.  6507).  .    . 

Cf.  XIII.  7281;  Wissowa  R.-K.,  p.  292,  n.  3.  The  abstract  Virtus  is  here 
more  important  than  Bellona. 

Fort(unae)   Fehcit(ati)    (XIV.  2568). 
One  goddess  is  represented  in  the  accompanying  bas-relief. 

deae  Fortunae  Tutelae  (VI.  178). 

lustitiae  Nemes(i)   (X.  3812). 
3'he    bilingual    form    htatrolvxi    "^it^tn    shows  that  but  one  deity  was  meant. 

Less  certain  are : 

lunoni  Nemesi  (III.  11 121).     Nemesi  in  smaller  letters. 

lunoni  Concordiae  Aug.  (VIII.  4197).  Large  space  between  the  two 
names. 

Mercurio  Aequitati  Aug.  (L'ann.  epig.  1904,  no.  119). 

The  following  are  doubtful : 

lovis  Tutelae  C.  Hostilius  Aemilianus  ve(teranus)  Aug(ustorum) 
n(ostrorum)  v.  s.  1.  m.     (V.  4243). 

Possibly  the  order  makes  for  the  construction  of  Tutelae  as  a  genitive  in 
apposition  with  lovis,  according  to  Aust's  view  (Roscher  II,  p.  752),  but  the 
use  of  a  genitive  standing  alone  without  its  governing  word,  and  the  fact 

"The  Greek  translation  Ze^j  'EXn/tf^pio*  in  Mon.  Ancyr,  may  have  arisen 
from  a  misunderstanding  of  the  Latin  copy. 


DEIFIED  ABSTRACTS  AS  A  CLASS  97 

that  one  expects  an  indirect  object  after  votum  solvit  make  the  dative  seem 
preferable.  In  that  case  lovis  is  subjective  genitive.  (So  Carter  De  cogn., 
p.  58.) 

I.  O.  M.  Advento  et  pro  salute  ....  (III.  6340). 
Mutilated  and  uncertain;  perhaps  advento=pro  adventu. 

Concordiae  Augustae  Pietati  (X.  810). 
The  brachylogy  of  the  rest  of  the  inscription  suggests  et  here,  but,  as  one 
building  is  referred  to,  it  may  mean  a  single  cult. 

Menti  Bonae  Saluti  (XIV.  3564)- 

The  above  evidence  is  sufficient  to  show  the  anomalous  position 
of  these  deified  abstractions  in  popular  thought.  Elevated  to  the 
rank  of  divinity  and  provided  with  temples,  flamens,  priests,  ahars, 
and  all  the  wherewithal  of  a  real  cult,  they  are  nevertheless  practically 
mere  qualities  or  states  restricted  to  this,  that,  and  the  other,  a  non- 
descript and  shadowy  crowd  that  cannot  be  classified  with  the 
anthropomorphic  gods  nor  the  materialistic  spirits  of  the  Indigita- 
menta- 

Nevertheless,  they  serve  a  purpose  and  perform  a  function  very 
similar,  and  indeed  in  some  cases  exactly  equivalent,  to  a  god  whom 
the  Romans  worshiped  in  a  highly  personal  way.  It  has  been 
noticed  long  before  this  that  these  deities  have  marked  resemblances 
to  the  genii.  (Cf.  Boissieii  Inscriptions  de  Lyon,  p.  12;  Preller  II, 
p.  178.  The  latter  discusses  them  in  the  same  chapter  with  the  genii 
and  Indigitamenta.)  I  wish  here,  therefore,  only  to  point  out  that 
this  is  the  conception  of  them  seen  most  commonly  in  the  inscrip- 
tions. The  combination  of  an  abstraction  with  a  genius  is  far  and 
away  the  most  frequent;  the  same  kind  of  genitives  and  the  same 
possessive  adjectives  are  attached  to  both ;  e.  g. :  (XIII.  6127)  Genio 
b(ene)f(iciariorum)  (et)  Concordi(ae)  var(iarum)  stat(ionum)  ; 
(VI.  32352)  Saluti  eius  b.  m.  et  Genio  ipsius;  (XIII.  6690)  Genium 
legioni  {sic)  XXII.  Pr.  p.  f.  Honori  Aquilae.  Finally,  not  only  the 
same  kind,  but  the  very  same  genitives  in  numerous  instances  modify 
Genius  and  an  abstract;  e.g.:  (XII.  181 5)  Genio  et  Honori  utri- 
culariorum  (cf.  V.  4449;  XIII.  6690)  ;  (OrelH  1718;  III.  449;  VI. 
254)  Genio  ac  maiestati  Imp.  Antonini  Pii  Felicis  Augusti;  (II. 
4082)  Laribus  et  Tutelae  Genio  L(uci)  n(ostri)  ;  (VI.  216;  cf.  177- 
79)  Genio  et  Fortunae  Tutelaeque  huius  loci.  In  the  last  case  the 
genitive  is  felt  with  each  noun.  One  or  two  cases  occur  where  an 
abstract  is  pluralized;  e.  g. :  (VI.  182)  Fortunab(us)  bal(nei) 
Verul(ani)    C.    Hostilius    Agathopus    d(onum)    d(edit) ;    (VIII. 


98       DEIFICATION  OF  ABSTRACT  IDEAS  IN  ROMAN  LITERATURE 

20827;  cf.  VIII.  15259-516)  I.  O.  P.  Max.  Geniusque  diis  immor- 
talibus  Victoriisque  d(ominorum)  n(ostrorum)  invictorum.  Tutela, 
as  has  been  noticed  before,  is  a  conception  that  links  the  abstracts 
with  the  genii.  On  the  one  side  she  is  viewed  as  the  general  deity  of 
protection;  on  the  other,  as  the  protecting  spirit  of  a  particular 
place,  practically  equivalent  to  the  genius. 

These  deified  qualities,  therefore,  are  comparable  to  the  spirits 
attending  a  man  through  life.  But  whereas  a  genius  was  guardian 
of  a  wide  range  of  interests,  usually  material,  pertaining  to  a  man 
or  an  object,  a  deified  quality  protected  a  special  phase  of  his  char- 
acter or  condition,  and  so  in  a  sense  is  a  specialized  genius.  Possi- 
bly the  best  example  of  a  mere  appellative  exalted  to  an  external 
power  or  personality  presiding  over  the  interests  of  a  person  is 
afforded  by  the  following  sepulchral   inscription:      (XIV.    1792) 

lunoni  et  Verecundiae  Ulpiae  Compses  q(uae)  vixit Vere- 

cundia,  not  elsewhere  deified,  is  regarded,  like  a  Juno,  as  the 
maiden's  tutelary  spirit.  Also  in  the  dedication  by  a  husband  and 
wife  to  Fides  sua  {CIL.  X.  5903)  there  was  a  dim  conception  of  a 
tutelary  spirit. 

To  conclude,  it  may  be  said  in  general  that  the  Romans  them- 
selves were  not  clear  in  their  ideas  of  this  class  of  deities.  Only 
Fortuna,  Victoria,  and  to  a  far  less  extent  Salus,  Felicitas,  and 
Virtus,  had  personality  in  any  appreciable  degree.  The  others  were 
mere  qualities  or  conditions  worthy  of  praise,  with  a  thin  cloak  of 
deification;  and  when  in  this  guise  they  were  grouped  with  the 
personal  gods,  they  amounted  to  no  more  than  spirits  or  genii  of 
those  ideas  represented  in  their  respective  names. 


,a  BOOKS  *v  «";„';;^^°  ,Xc« 


;^Ui^^®^^ 


SEP  26  2003 


